Subject: Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban] Bible translation style question)

From: "Adam Raizen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 01:31:33 +0200

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.