From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Thu Mar 15 17:35:04 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 16 Mar 2001 01:35:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 42042 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2001 01:35:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 16 Mar 2001 01:35:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta02-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.42) by mta2 with SMTP; 16 Mar 2001 01:35:03 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.252.12.53]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010316013502.NJSB290.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 01:35:02 +0000 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Train catching ut nunc Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 01:34:08 -0000 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) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Jorge: > We really need a lujvo that means something like: > > x1 just barely/scarcely/hardly/minimally is/does x2. Better would be: x1 just barely/scarcely/hardly/minimally is which avoids lots of awkward tedious sumti raising kerfuffle. If you are concerned about the insecure interpretations of ja'a/na sai/ru'e, then your lujvo could be ja'a zei ru'e or else [opposite-of-mutce] zei ja'a or so'a zei ja'a or whatever. > >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". Not really a "weak affirmation" -- "moderately true" might be a better way of capturing it. --And.