Message-Id: <199511230243.VAA28222@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Wed, 22 Nov 1995 20:15:12 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      scalar truth
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

Lojbab:
> >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.

I don't understand what indicator space is. At any rate, the motive
behind the specifics of my proposal was to avoid proposing yet another
load of new cmavo. If existing cmavo won't serve, then new ones it will
have to be.

> What is wrong with "so'Vcu'o" or some other lujvo based on the so'V
> words (so'V+jei?), which all have rafsi.

The problem is (i) {cuo} expresses a probability, which is not what
I was proposing, and (ii) {cuo} (or {jei}) are brivla, whereas what
is needed is something of NA and NAhE type function.

But the idea of using so'V is something I was toying with before I
made the +CAI proposal. If you would consider two new selmao
that take a PA and yield a NA and NAhE, then I will consider using
PA. This might delight Steve, who has persistently been asking for
a way to use numbers.

---
And