Re: scalar polarity

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

Jorge:
> > > I prefer:
> > > je'ucai
               [= almost 100% true]
> > > je'u(sai)
> > > je'uru'e
> > > je'ucu'i
> > > je'unairu'e
> > > je'unai(sai)
> > > je'unaicai
               [= almost 0% true]
> > It's better to have the same cmavo at the start of each, I guess,
> > but why {jeu}? Isn't {jeu} in UI? What's needed is rather something
> > in NA, no?
> {je'u} is in UI, yes, and I think that's the right place for this.
> {xu} is also in UI, and {je'u} and its variations seem like the
> natural answer to the "true?" question.

I had forgotten this. I sort of accept your argument that if {xu} is
in UI then {jeu} & its kin are legitimately in UI.

> {ja'a} and {na} say that a relationship holds or doesn't hold. The
> adornments on them don't change that. {naru'e} would mean "almost",
> which is to say that the relationship doesn't hold, even though it is
> close to.

Right.

> On the other hand, the {je'u} series gives truly fuzzy or indeterminate
> or fractional truth values,

Right.

> which seems to be a different thing from what the NAs do. In this
> case there is no definite answer as to whether the relationship does
> or does not hold, so {ja'a} and {na} don't really help.

This bit I don't see. Of course "50% true/false" is different from
{jaa} and {na}, but I don't see why it doesn't belong in the same
paradigm. Maybe pc and Steve have views on that.

> > Could {jeu} be moved into NA? If not, {naa} is unassigned
> > in my maoste.
> I have:
> >> na'a      BY1      cancel shifts     cancel all letteral shifts

I've never known what all those shifts do. I checked another maoste
and I do have {naa} there.

> but in any case, I think UI is the right place for the answers to {xu}.

Fair enough, but surely {na} and {jaa} are okay as answers to {xu}, and
they're in NA.

But at any rate, an attraction of {jeu} + CAI is that it's already
grammatical, so the only change we need ask for is NA + CAI and NAhe + CAI.

---
And