From lojbab@lojban.org Mon Jul 03 00:42:33 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8808 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2000 07:42:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Jul 2000 07:42:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-4.cais.net) (205.252.14.74) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Jul 2000 07:42:33 -0000 Received: from bob (7.dynamic.cais.com [207.226.56.7]) by stmpy-4.cais.net (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e637gV414084 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 03:42:32 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from lojbab@lojban.org) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000703033247.00a84100@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: lojban/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 03:42:43 -0400 To: Subject: Re: [lojban] Opposites (was: opposite of za'o) In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: Robert LeChevalier At 09:49 AM 07/02/2000 +0100, Colin Fine wrote: >I just noticed what an odd word "opposite" is in this context. >Or any lojbanic context. I have difficulty with a number of the UInai >glosses, but my particular se mabla is ba'anai, where the scale on which it >has been determined negation is to run is to my mind bizarre. It is bizarre to my mind too, and I came up with it. But at that point it was a matter of efficient use of cmavo space for something that was primarily an evidential (though I think someone argued for one of the three points on the scale being attitudinal) in Lojban. I think that there is only one other evidential that has a defined negation and hence an implied scale; it is arguable than none of them should be expressed as negations even etymological ones, except that the grammar of UI allows the things to be negated, so we might as well use it. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org