Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tJKqG-0000ZUC; Sat, 25 Nov 95 15:40 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 70090314 ; Sat, 25 Nov 1995 14:40:32 +0100 Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 08:38:53 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: na ru'e X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 788 Lines: 19 Jorge: >That's not a problem. {naru'e} (=almost) is a real {na}. {ru'e} simply >adds the indication that it is very close to the border of not being >{na}, but it doesn't say that it isn't. No, right now ru'e expresses some weak unspecified emotional reaction to "na" >> If the judge in court >> asks "xu", your truth claim can be evaluated as truth or lie. "je'u+ >> indicator is not much in the way of a truth claim. > >Are judges really so recalcitrant? What if you have to answer an >insidious question, are you not allowed to say "not quite", "not >exactly", "in a sense", etc? It is classic in lawyer movies to have the lawyer object and the judge impatiently order the witness to stop weaselwording and give a simple yes or no. Of course in Lojban, you could answer na'i.