Subject: Re: [lojban] mu'ei

From: Jorge "Llamb�as" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 13:58:03 -0700 (PDT)

la nitcion cusku di'e

> the problem with possible worlds is that, while they are there to give 
> hypothetical scenarios a cardinality (and thereby a denotation), there 
> are only three sensible numbers for them: no; ro; and me'i. 

There is also {su'o} to go with that group:

romu'ei: necessary
nomu'ei: impossible
su'omu'ei: possible
me'imu'ei: not necessary

But as John pointed out, the so'V series is also usable with mu'ei, 
giving something like:

so'amu'ei: almost necessary
so'emu'ei: most probable
so'imu'ei: very likely
so'omu'ei: somewhat likely
so'umu'ei: barely possible 

And also:

du'emu'ei: too likely
mo'amu'ei: not likely enough
raumu'ei: likely enough

And of course: 

xomu'ei: how likely?

> If and when the topic comes up on bpfk, I'd much 
> rather an alternative like expanding the definition of ka'e as sumti 
> tcita to encompass me'imu'ei, and na'eka'e na for romu'ei. Or something.

{ka'e} is closest to {su'omu'ei}, something that is possible
is something that happens in at least one possible world.

{na'eka'e} is closest to {nomu'ei}, something that happens in no possible
world is something impossible.

{me'imu'ei} is something that does not happen in every possible
world, thus it does not necessarily happen. It may even be something
impossible. 

There is no CAhA corresponding to {romu'ei}, though one was proposed
as an experimental cmavo. ({ba'ai}? I can't check on the wiki right 
now.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com