Subject: Re: [lojban] Train catching ut nunc

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:18:01 EST

In a message dated 3/14/2001 11:17:33 AM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> <there is the problem that the "near miss" or "near hit" part is 
> > lost truth functionally.  
> 
> You're assuming non-fuzzy logic. 8)>

No, the basic rule is that UI and its kin have NO assertive force, bivalent, 
trivalent, fuzzivalent or whatever. Since CAI is not UI, I suppose we have 
some wiggle room, and we did wiggle once in the case of trivalent logics.  
But that was, I think, pretty clearly just an ad hoc experiment, not an 
actual suggestion for lb usage.  
Come to think of it, I don't remember how the Peoria fuzzyist does do fuzzy 
logics (are you listening?).

ivan:
<, to my mind it will be
exactly the same thing as if those meanings are assigned to cmavo
chosen at random.>
Not quite chosen at random, since there clearly is a relation here -- we 
wouldn't pick {ba'o}, for example. But I agree that pushing Gricean factors 
is probably not a good ground for setting up an idiom in a language where we 
don't have any very good notion of what people will expect (how a cooperative 
interlocutor acts).  

ivan (xoxes)
<> We really need a lujvo that means something like:
> 
>    x1 just barely/scarcely/hardly/minimally is/does x2.

Seconded.>
{koigre}: "gets over the border, edge, of" It could, of course, mean other 
things, but this got there first.
{snada koigre} for "just made it" = {fliba jibni} "almost missed it" andso 
on.

<Jorge Llambias wrote:
> Would {jibni snada} be &quot;just barely caught it&quot; and {snada jibni}
> &quot;almost caught it&quot;? That would be fun.

Yes, in fact that can work, I think, thanks to the flexibility
of tanru. All it takes is interpreting {jibni snada} as
`succeed narrowly' and {snada jibni} as `approach success'.>
Cute, but I ain't giving one of MY seegars.

xorxes (xod? Robin-the-Canuck?)
<> pu ki mi pu'o je banai snada tu'a le trene
>
>I believe you meant pu ki mi pu'o jenai ba snada tu'a le trene since it
>doesn't parse otherwise.

It should parse both ways, I think. Parser bug?

The meanings also are the same as far as I can tell.>

Always a pain. In spite of having done boogobs of the work on Lojban 
negation, I can never remember how it all works out in the text. Surely, 
{jenai ba P} negates {ba P}, but is the negation inside or outside the {ba}. 
I assume outside, since it is {na} in some sense. But the {nai} in {banai} 
should just negate (ba} and mean "at some other time," even though it is not 
{na'e} exactly. At best, it may be a {na} inside the {ba} and so only say 
that at some future time I don't do it but, maybe at the interesting time I 
do. Or this may be all overfussiness.
I think the original proposal (the missing 4) was with {ca'a}, which is 
clearer (and the two placements of {na'i} are less problematically 
equivalent). I think I still prefer the predicative solution as a general 
piece, however.