proposed change to NAI

[John Cowan <cbmvax!snark.thyrsus.com!cowan>]

I am strongly opposed to the idea of a second cmavo of NAI, both for Nick's
reasons and because I believe it is far too late to introduce such a change.
I currently favor the following set of choices for NAI meaning:

	A,GA,GIhA,GUhA,JA,GI	contradictory (status quo)
	PU			contradictory (status quo)
	FAhA			contradictory (analogous to PU)
	BAI			contradictory (status quo)
	TAHE, ROI		contrary, "na'e" (status quo)
	COI, UI			contrary, "to'e" (status quo)
	JOI, BIhI		contrary (change to negation paper)
	NU			undecided

I believe that it makes no sense to logically contradict a non-logical
connective:

	mi joinai do klama le zarci

should not mean the same as simply

	mi joi do na klama le zarci
	It is false that you-and-I (as a team) go to the store

Instead, I favor the translation:

	You and I (not as a team) go to the store.

In other words, some other connective, perhaps non-logical ("jo'u"), perhaps
logical (".e" or ".a" or even ".onai") applies.  This is scalar negation
where the scale is the other possible connectives.

I would be willing to abandon the whole mess of logically connected
abstractions (including negated abstractions).  It was invented to handle
"three blind mice, see how they run" by concocting an absurd combination of
abstractors that were meant to capture the vague sense of "how".  I think
that "kajeni" and "nujezu'onai" and so on are warts.
--
cowan@snark.thyrsus.com		...!uunet!cbmvax!snark!cowan
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban