RE: [lojban] so'a

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>]

Jorge:
> la and cusku di'e
> 
> >Am I right in reasoning that so'a 3 = 2 or 4 (among other
> >possible values), and that to express English "almost 3"
> >(= just under 3) one should use "so'a su'o 3", while "just
> >over 3" would then be "so'a su'e 3"?
> 
> That would pull so'a out of the so'V series. For the other
> members, the meaning is as in {so'u ci} = "3 which are few",
> {so'e ci} = "3 which are most", so I would say {so'a ci} = "3
> which are almost all".
>
> {ji'i ci} is "about 3". Maybe {za'uru'e ci} for "just over 3"
> and {me'iru'e ci} for "just under 3". I have used {za'usai ci}
> for "much more than three".
> 
> mu'o mi'e xorxes

Your reasoning is sound, but solo {so'a} then becomes sort-of
equivalent to {ji'i ro}. Except that "almost 3", "almost 0",
"almost all" entail "not 3", "not 0", "not all", whereas these
aren't entailed by "ji'i ci", "ji'i no", "ji'i ro". This also
means that {ji'i gai} does not mean "close to but not exactly
a dozen", which is what I had thought "so'a gai" would mean.
"Close to but not exactly a dozen" doesn't sound like something
one would often want to say, but OTOH, "close to but not 
exactly enough" sounds like something it would be very useful
to be able to say, and if not "so'a rau", then how should it be
said? (I don't deny that it would also be useful to be able to
express "almost all, which is enough".)

Still, I think I buy your analysis (as I generally do).

--And.