[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
cu'u la .and.
Lojbab: > >I see what you're also doing is saying: > > > >{le} is +specific -veridical > >{lo} is -specific +veridical > > > >If we had a -specific -veridical, we'd have the solution to our > >problems >> I would imagine that there are a couple of UI discursives already in the> language that would convey -specific,I don't think so. The best hope would be to use something like {kau} thatis known to be a meaningless diacritic.
Just as I've worked out for myself (with your prodding) a meaningful formal sense of {kau}? Oh no you don't. {kau}'s taken, and I won't have it subverted...
> and if the only point is to address> possibly non-existent things like unicorns, I don't see why leda'i -unicorn> doesn't convey that The BF will have to rule on whether this (ab)use of da'i that has been established through usage is official.
Inasmuch as the BPFK has to rule what the hell da'i means, yes.
Addressing possibly nonexistent things like unicorns is not the only point, but that is not to say that Intensional gadri don't have Intensionalless paraphrases.
*shrug* da'icu'i? 'May or may not be in existence in the real world?' -- It appears to be a real script (or a board game), and there are people who want to be able to work with the script as part of the decipherment process. On the other hand, there *is* just the one document (or board game), so there's only so much one can do. (John Jenkins on the Phaistos Disk; Unicode mailing list) Dr Nick Nicholas. nickn@hidden.email http://www.opoudjis.net