From colin@KINDNESS.DEMON.CO.UK Mon Jul 03 16:08:22 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10938 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2000 23:08:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Jul 2000 23:08:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net) (194.217.242.91) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Jul 2000 23:08:22 -0000 Received: from kindness.demon.co.uk ([158.152.216.198] helo=arac) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 139FK7-000JEb-0X for lojban@egroups.com; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 00:08:19 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Opposites (was: opposite of za'o) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 00:15:00 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20000703033247.00a84100@127.0.0.1> Importance: Normal From: "Colin Fine" If I met "ba'anai" (and didn't recall this oddity), I would be inclined to try and interpret it as "I don't really expect this, but it could happen" **************************************************************************** **** Colin Fine "Don't just do something! Stand There" - from 'Behold the Spirit' workshop colin@kindness.demon.co.uk **************************************************************************** **** -----Original Message----- From: Robert LeChevalier [mailto:lojbab@lojban.org] Sent: 03 July 2000 08:43 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Opposites (was: opposite of za'o) 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lonely? Get Firetalk! Free, unlimited calls anywhere in the world. Free voice chat on hundreds of topics. http://click.egroups.com/1/5477/4/_/17627/_/962610153/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com