Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:26:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710012226.RAA20273@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: "Nearly Correct" (was New thread, anyone?) X-To: jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1644 Lines: 35 > >"Almost Correct" >> >>This seems symmetrical to me: the near-thing is the same as >>the correct-thing, and either could serve as the tertau. > >But the near-thing is not the same as the correct-thing! It is >close to it, but not the same. "Almost correct" is not a kind >of correct, it is a kind of non-correct. It is near the border, >but on the negative side. Near the border on the positive >side would be "barely correct". At the risk of reintroducing the old thread %^) toldra (to'e drani) isn't a kind of drani either. We have dukti and fatne with historical use in forming two kinds of opposite tanru (and presumably lujvo) that predate the existence of to'e in the language. Neither dukti broda nor fatne broda are likely to be a kind of broda. the requirement to have them work as tanru however implies that the place structure of broda still applies to its opposite, since you cannot change the place structure. I guess I am arguing that your saying that jibni drani has to be a kind of drani seem extreme to me, especially inthe context of the multitude of kinds of permissible tanru describe in the Book, deriving from Ivan's paper. It id a good basic rule of thumb, because you won't run afoul of the place structure by requiring the tanru to be a "kind of" the tertau, but it potentially limitd the language to make it a general rule. This is not to say that I don't agree with your analysis - I am thus far undecioded (in part so I can be a useful sounding board to Nora, andin part because I am relishing the freedom of no longer being the main standard of the language %^). lojbab