From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Mar 14 10:38:36 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 14 Mar 2001 18:38:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 75711 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2001 18:38:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Mar 2001 18:38:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.195) by mta3 with SMTP; 14 Mar 2001 19:39:35 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 10:38:31 -0800 Received: from 200.41.210.23 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 18:38:31 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.210.23] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Train catching ut nunc Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 18:38:31 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Mar 2001 18:38:31.0101 (UTC) FILETIME=[F7B116D0:01C0ACB5] From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e >1) A tanru with {jibni} or the like. Not {jibni snada} clearly, since -- >oh, the joys of a logical language! -- a {jibni snada} is still a {snada}. Would {jibni snada} be "just barely caught it" and {snada jibni} "almost caught it"? That would be fun. We really need a lujvo that means something like: x1 just barely/scarcely/hardly/minimally is/does x2. >3) Modified affirmatives or denials: {ja'a ru'e} and {na'e ru'e}. Aside >from >not being sure about the grammaticality of these (though they seem to pass >both parsers) there is the problem that the "near miss" or "near hit" part >is >lost truth functionally. They are grammatical, but I'm not too enthusiastic about them either. Unless we have a convention that that is their meaning, they are too vague, a "weak affirmation" could be anything, not necessarily a "barely". co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.