[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: scalar truth

la lojbab cusku di'e

> >Good.  So we ask for NA CAI and NAhE CAI, and something in NA that means
> >"sort of; intermediate between complete truth and complete falsity"?
> Except that CAI is part of indicator space (and has seen significant use
> as standalone indicators, I might add - Lojban "sai" has crept into my
> regular English usage %^), as well as my Lojban).  I would be very
> reluctant to make any more of indicator space than NAI serve double duty
> in the regular grammar, or you start constraining the use of indicators.

That's not a problem. {naru'e} (=almost) is a real {na}. {ru'e} simply
adds the indication that it is very close to the border of not being
{na}, but it doesn't say that it isn't.

> >but in any case, I think UI is the right place for the answers to {xu}.
> UI is the right place to answer "je'upei" or ".iapei".

Yes, that too.

> xu is a discursive that asks for a truth CLAIM.

Right. It means "true?". One way of answering is by making a claim.
Another is by saying "je'u".

        xu do klama le zarci
        Is it true that you go to the store?

        I do.

        It's true.

Both answers seem good to me.

>  If the judge in court
> asks "xu", your truth claim can be evaluated as truth or lie.  "je'u+
> indicator is not much in the way of a truth claim.

Are judges really so recalcitrant? What if you have to answer an
insidious question, are you not allowed to say "not quite", "not
exactly", "in a sense", etc?