From araizen@newmail.net Wed Jan 30 15:31:06 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 30 Jan 2002 23:31:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 88752 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2002 23:31:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Jan 2002 23:31:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sphere.barak.net.il) (212.150.48.98) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Jan 2002 23:31:05 -0000 Received: from out.newmail.net ([10.10.11.10]) by sphere.barak.net.il (InterMail vK.4.03.00.00 201-232-121 license 5444ddd44659357c6c93343e0ce38507) with SMTP id <20020130232936.VYUM2403.sphere@out.newmail.net> for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 01:29:36 +0200 Received: from default ([62.0.182.12]) by out.newmail.net ; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 01:32:12 +0200 Message-ID: <06ae01c1a9e6$483fd680$90b4003e@default> To: "Lojban List" References: Subject: Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban] Bible translation style question) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 01:31:33 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 From: "Adam Raizen" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=3063669 X-Yahoo-Profile: araizen la xod. cusku di'e > You're stepping close to the heresy that certain brivla can be represented > with UI. Welcome! That's why I said 'UI in some cases'. The evidentials and discursives represent selbrivla, but I'm not sure that I accept that 'ui' is exactly the same as 'sei gleki'. Maybe the only difference between 'ui mi klama' and 'mi gleki le nu mi klama' is which sentence is focused, but I think there might be something more to it. > What do you think of ju'ocu'i? I have used 'la'acu'i' a couple of times, I think. If the only difference between 'ju'o' and 'la'a' is the degree of certainty, then the mid-points would be the same, I guess. > > Of course, one might argue that 'possible' is a common enough concept > > that it should have its own single-word UI, but that's a different > > story (and it looks like we're stuck with what we have). You could use > > just use 'ru'e' by itself if need be (supported from trivalent logic). > > > > Why ru'e and not cu'i? Basically because it's 'ru'e' that glossed as 'possibility' in the lojban version of trivalent logic (http://nuzban.wiw.org/wiki/index.php?Three-value%20Logic), but other than that 'cu'i' is just as good, if not better. mu'o mi'e .adam.