Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id IAA06709 for ; Sat, 25 Nov 1995 08:52:37 -0500 Message-Id: <199511251352.IAA06709@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 93DEFCDF ; Sat, 25 Nov 1995 9:40:56 -0400 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: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Sat Nov 25 08:52:40 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU 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.