Re: [lojban] Attitudinal scales and the meaning of {cu'i}

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Daniel Brockman
<daniel@gointeractive.se> wrote:
>
> Yeah, they're probably equivalent, but I particularly like the {na}
> interpretation because {UI sai cu'i} = {sei na mutce lo ka broda}
> ends up meaning something useful.  If we take {cu'i} for {nutli}, then
> we get {sei nutli lo ka mutce lo ka broda}, which seems useless.

I think I would tend to read that as ((UI sai) cu'i) rather than as
(UI (sai cu'i)).

What about "UI cu'i cu'i"? Would the two cu'i cancel out in your scheme?

All of this reminds me of this long ago exercise:
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Three-value+Logic

This is what was said of "cu'i" in that three-value logic system:

"(0,1,-1) is not absolutely neutral, it is uncertainty with a bent
towards assertion, but it is the closest to neutral and we do need it
to generate others, so {cu'i} has to be it."

Which is kind of similar to what I was saying about "o'acu'i" and "modesty".

In the three-value system, full neutrality was cu'icai (-1, 1, -1)
(i.e. an operator that returns false for true or false, and true for
neutral.)


>>> I have never used {be'u} nor seen it used, so I have no intuitions
>>> about what it might mean.
>>
>> I think it's "sei to'e dukse".
>
> Well... okay.  So could I say {be'u} when I'm hungry?
> Whenever I have too little of something, {be'u} applies?

Not sure if "be'u" by itself would be very clear just to express that
you're hungry, but if you are hungry and someone is not serving enough
on your plate, you might indicate that with "be'u", "not enough!"

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.