Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tHcV0-0000ZUC; Mon, 20 Nov 95 22:07 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id AAE7B953 ; Mon, 20 Nov 1995 21:07:30 +0100 Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 15:05:26 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: scalar truth X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1160 Lines: 21 >Good. So we ask for NA CAI and NAhE CAI, and something in NA that means >"sort of; intermediate between complete truth and complete falsity"? Except that CAI is part of indicator space (and has seen significant use as standalone indicators, I might add - Lojban "sai" has crept into my regular English usage %^), as well as my Lojban). I would be very reluctant to make any more of indicator space than NAI serve double duty in the regular grammar, or you start constraining the use of indicators. What is wrong with "so'Vcu'o" or some other lujvo based on the so'V words (so'V+jei?), which all have rafsi. That gives you potentially 7 degrees of positive if you also count da'a and ro in the set, and presumably also 7 degrees of negative built with "nal" (and 7 degrees of neutral and polar opposite too, whatever they would mean %^). And since you are in rafsi/lujvo space there is no problem with making longer lujvo based on them (there are no rafsi assigned to CAI, unlike most of NAhE; je'a doesn't have a rafsi, but there are a couple of jeV rafsi available if no other suitable tanru basis for a positive scale seems acceptable). lojbab