Message-Id: <199511212258.RAA01344@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Tue, 21 Nov 1995 17:47:16 -0500
Reply-To: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: scalar truth
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

la lojbab cusku di'e

> >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.

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.

> >but in any case, I think UI is the right place for the answers to {xu}.
>
> UI is the right place to answer "je'upei" or ".iapei".

Yes, that too.

> xu is a discursive that asks for a truth CLAIM.

Right. It means "true?". One way of answering is by making a claim.
Another is by saying "je'u".

        xu do klama le zarci
        Is it true that you go to the store?

        go'i
        I do.

        je'u
        It's true.

Both answers seem good to me.


>  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?

Jorge