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 QAA00980 for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Mon, 4 Mar 1996 16:36:58 -0500
Message-Id: <199603042136.QAA00980@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 73523BAC ; Mon, 4 Mar 1996 15:55:18 -0500
Date:         Mon, 4 Mar 1996 19:45:10 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
X-UIDL: 825976018.000
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: TECH: fuzzy: <xoi> vs. <fihuhi>
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: U
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 531
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Mar 04 16:43:33 1996
X-From-Space-Address: -

Lojbab:
> There is a predicate equivalent to negation/affirmation: jetnu/jitfa
> so you can use a predicate with jetnu to get the equivalent of ja'a
> with a subscript.  There are all manner of other areas, some
> unexplored, where predicates can pop into unusual grammatical locations.

True, and quantifiers and connectives can be replaced by predicates too.
But with much upheaval. If you use {jitfa} instead of {na} then you're
going to have to use prenexes: {ro da zou kuau da broda kiai jitfa}
= {ro da na ku broda}.
---
And