you seem to not have subject lines in your posts

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

I think that Cowan's proposal is an attempt to neutralize the issue of
the XOI/XI'O proposals.  I can't remember which is which, but one was
to take a quantifier, and have the grammar of NA/na/ja'a which is truth
value of a bridi.  The other was to take a quantifier and have the grammar
of NAhE/na'e/je'a/no'e which is a scalar degree-of truth/applicability of
a selbri-word as an indicator of the desired meaning, on some scale, eg.
beautiful/ugly hairy/bald.

If a "subscript" attached to one of the current members of the selma'o
can sufficiently serve to associate a number with the selma'o, then the
XI+quantifier approach serve the function of both XI'O and XOI, since it
can attach to either NA or NAhE.  It can also attach to other words and
constructs, with meaning not well-defined for some of them, and hence could
come to replace other potential needs for fuzzy expression that have not been
identified yet.

The weakness in my mind is that presuming that subscripts in these instances
mean some kind of fuzzy implication, thereby removes the possibility that we can
 use the subscripts for something else.

This is not necessarily a problem - the subscrirpts on NA and NAhE were
enabled for example, because of the desire to attach a metalinguistic
SEI expression or a parenthesis TOI (a different free modifier structure)
and not for putting in subscripts.  As long as there is no perceived use for
subscripts on NA or NAhE other than for fuzzy logic, then there is no
probolem.

As fot the other word in MOI, since I had intended that cu'o have the meaning
that Cowan proposes, I can't argue with the new one if people feel that the
current understanding of cu'o is different and useful.

lojbab