Re: "Nearly Correct" (was New thread, anyone?)

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

> >"Almost Correct"
>>
>>This seems symmetrical to me: the near-thing is the same as
>>the correct-thing, and either could serve as the tertau.
>
>But the near-thing is not the same as the correct-thing! It is
>close to it, but not the same. "Almost correct" is not a kind
>of correct, it is a kind of non-correct. It is near the border,
>but on the negative side. Near the border on the positive
>side would be "barely correct".

At the risk of reintroducing the old thread %^)

toldra (to'e drani) isn't a kind of drani either.

We have dukti and fatne with historical use in forming two kinds of opposite
tanru (and presumably lujvo) that predate the existence of to'e in the
language.  Neither dukti broda nor fatne broda are likely to be a kind of
broda.  the requirement to have them work as tanru however implies that the
place structure of broda still applies to its opposite, since you cannot
change the place structure.

I guess I am arguing that your saying that jibni drani has to be a kind of
drani seem extreme to me, especially inthe context of the multitude of kinds
of permissible tanru describe in the Book, deriving from Ivan's paper.
It id a good basic rule of thumb, because you won't run afoul of the place
structure by requiring the tanru to be a "kind of" the tertau, but it
potentially limitd the language to make it a general rule.

This is not to say that I don't agree with your analysis - I am thus far
undecioded (in part so I can be a useful sounding board to Nora, andin part
because I am relishing the freedom of no longer being the main standard of
the language %^).

lojbab