gah! {oi se'i}
I meant {gi'e} in place of {ge}, I think; well, there's a reason I included the English.
{na ru'e nibli} is an interesting idea, but I have two problems with it:
The first, which you pointed out, is that it can't be made into a lujvo, but this is a minor issue.
The second is that {nibli} seems fundamentally to be the wrong word {pe'i}. I'm not sure if it's because I think of logical entailment as distinct from evidence (possibly {malgli} of me) or because it's classified in the CLL as a causal, but there's some nagging sense that it's the wrong tool for the job.
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 4:58 AM, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26 July 2011 09:47, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:Perhaps I should have said:
> [ja'a] klina = to be transparent
> na klina = to be not transparent
> na ru'e klina = to be weakly-not transparent --> to be almost transparent
na klina = to not be transparent
na ru'e klina = to weakly-not be transparent --> to almost be transparent
"to be not ..." sounds more like "[ja'a] na'e ...".
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.
--
mu'o mi'e .arpis.
--You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.