From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Thu Mar 15 17:35:04 2001
Return-Path: <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 16 Mar 2001 01:35:04 -0000
Received: (qmail 42042 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2001 01:35:04 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 16 Mar 2001 01:35:04 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mta02-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.42) by mta2 with SMTP; 16 Mar 2001 01:35:03 -0000
Received: from andrew ([62.252.12.53]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010316013502.NJSB290.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 01:35:02 +0000
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] Train catching ut nunc
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 01:34:08 -0000
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMCEGCDMAA.a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <F195FRaqbC8wSA1XvpF000096f1@hotmail.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 5859

Jorge:
> We really need a lujvo that means something like:
> 
>    x1 just barely/scarcely/hardly/minimally is/does x2.

Better would be:

     x1 just barely/scarcely/hardly/minimally is

which avoids lots of awkward tedious sumti raising
kerfuffle.

If you are concerned about the insecure interpretations
of ja'a/na sai/ru'e, then your lujvo could be

     ja'a zei ru'e

or else

     [opposite-of-mutce] zei ja'a

or

     so'a zei ja'a

or whatever.

> >3) Modified affirmatives or denials: {ja'a ru'e} and {na'e ru'e}.  Aside 
> >from
> >not being sure about the grammaticality of these (though they seem to pass
> >both parsers) there is the problem that the "near miss" or "near hit" part 
> >is
> >lost truth functionally.
> 
> They are grammatical, but I'm not too enthusiastic about them either.
> Unless we have a convention that that is their meaning, they are
> too vague, a "weak affirmation" could be anything, not necessarily
> a "barely".

Not really a "weak affirmation" -- "moderately true" might be a better way
of capturing it.

--And.