On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Jed
<three65daysaweek@yahoo.com> wrote:
"na'i" and "jo'a" are officially defined as "metalinguistic no" and
"metalinguistic yes," respectively. I can understand "na'i" being used
in philosophical discussions, or when one simply doesn't feel like
answering the question they have been asked. However, does this mean
that "jo'a" has even less actual meaning, and means nothing concrete
beyond "yes, I heard you, maybe I'll answer, maybe I won't"?
HAS NOT RTFM :)
http://dag.github.com/cll/15/10/
jo'a is the direct opposite of na'i -- used to indicate that a construct or presupposition, while unusual, is in fact correct.
As for it's use -- well... this is what comes to mind:
"jo'a"
"na'i"
"jo'a"
"na'i"
"ba'e jo'a"
"ba'e na'i"
"ba'e jo'a"
"ba'e na'i"
"ba'e jo'asai"
"ba'e na'isai"
(if you haven't guessed, this is the classic playground argument 'IS!' 'IS NOT!!' 'IS TOO!' 'IS NOT!'.)
More seriously, some of the Lojban I wrote in IRC would benefit from jo'a flagging. for instance, I wrote something meaning
"I am orange in a way that has sent-ness (compelled by a small fruit [the sent-ness, that is])"