| In a message dated 3/14/2001 11:17:33 AM Central Standard Time,
rlpowell@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca writes: <there is the problem that the "near miss" or "near hit" part is No, the basic rule is that UI and its kin have NO assertive force, bivalent, trivalent, fuzzivalent or whatever. Since CAI is not UI, I suppose we have some wiggle room, and we did wiggle once in the case of trivalent logics. But that was, I think, pretty clearly just an ad hoc experiment, not an actual suggestion for lb usage. Come to think of it, I don't remember how the Peoria fuzzyist does do fuzzy logics (are you listening?). ivan: <, to my mind it will be exactly the same thing as if those meanings are assigned to cmavo chosen at random.> Not quite chosen at random, since there clearly is a relation here -- we wouldn't pick {ba'o}, for example. But I agree that pushing Gricean factors is probably not a good ground for setting up an idiom in a language where we don't have any very good notion of what people will expect (how a cooperative interlocutor acts). ivan (xoxes) <> We really need a lujvo that means something like: > > x1 just barely/scarcely/hardly/minimally is/does x2. Seconded.> {koigre}: "gets over the border, edge, of" It could, of course, mean other things, but this got there first. {snada koigre} for "just made it" = {fliba jibni} "almost missed it" and so on. <Jorge Llambias wrote: > Would {jibni snada} be "just barely caught it" and {snada jibni} > "almost caught it"? That would be fun. Yes, in fact that can work, I think, thanks to the flexibility of tanru. All it takes is interpreting {jibni snada} as `succeed narrowly' and {snada jibni} as `approach success'.> Cute, but I ain't giving one of MY seegars. xorxes (xod? Robin-the-Canuck?) <> pu ki mi pu'o je banai snada tu'a le trene > >I believe you meant pu ki mi pu'o jenai ba snada tu'a le trene since it >doesn't parse otherwise. It should parse both ways, I think. Parser bug? The meanings also are the same as far as I can tell.> Always a pain. In spite of having done boogobs of the work on Lojban negation, I can never remember how it all works out in the text. Surely, {jenai ba P} negates {ba P}, but is the negation inside or outside the {ba}. I assume outside, since it is {na} in some sense. But the {nai} in {banai} should just negate (ba} and mean "at some other time," even though it is not {na'e} exactly. At best, it may be a {na} inside the {ba} and so only say that at some future time I don't do it but, maybe at the interesting time I do. Or this may be all overfussiness. I think the original proposal (the missing 4) was with {ca'a}, which is clearer (and the two placements of {na'i} are less problematically equivalent). I think I still prefer the predicative solution as ageneral piece, however. |