[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jorge:
> la xod cusku di'e
>
> >I have a little problem with ja'a + CAI. It emulates the UI, where a ui
> >covers .5 the truth scale and uinai covers the other. But it's the same
> >ui; here with ja'a and na it's a different cmavo and no "-nai".
>
> ja'anai = na
> nanai = ja'a
> ja'acu'i = nacu'i (= sort of)
>
> There are two cmavo for convenience, but it is the same scale
> covered by both.
>
> >Another issue with ja'a + CAI is that CAI can already float wherever it
> >likes in a bridi, and could modify the ".i" as well, so including ja'a in
> >there is totally redundant.
>
> {ja'a} is necessary so that we know we're talking about truth values.
> There is no free floating {cai}, it always attaches to the previous
> word. Attaching to {i} might be similar to attaching to {ja'a}, but
> it need not be.
I had thought that CAI attaches to the previous word, but then John
said "No, it attaches only to a preceding UI, and if there is no
preceding UI then there is an implicit ge'e". If that is correct and
quasi-official then it is problematic for the use of CAI as generalized
intensity markers.
It would be nice to settle this issue. Treating CAI as generalized
intensity seems intrinsically the better option, but I think we should
go against quasi-official pronouncements only when they are either
plain wrong (I can't think of examples, but some have cropped up
-- some CLL examples of {jei} = "whether", say?) or when they are
just an Incredibly Bad Idea (e.g. the ku-less na scoping issue).
As an aside, John says that the Incredibly Bad Idea about the scope
of ku-less na was down to Lojbab's prescription. But how did we let
this happen? Great though they are, Lojbab's fortes do not seem to
be centred on the capacity to make decisions such as these. Did we
take the view that Lojban, in its post-Loglan incarnation, was
Lojbab's invention?
I joined Lojban list in 1991, and design issues were hardly ever
discussed, and when they were, they were initiated by the rank
and file and generally deprecated by Lojban Central. The list
itself dates back only to 1989, so it seems unlikely that all
issues were thrashed out in the two years before I joined. So
was it the case that they were not actually ever thrashed out?
--And.