Yes, this is duplicated from ju'acu'i... for two reasons: 1. It's
shorter, and 2. It's becoming somewhat popular to interpret ju'onai as
"uncertainty" rather than "impossibility"; after all, if one wishes to say
"No way that could happen", they could just use ju'o naku la'edi'u fasnu.
Similarly, ju'anai can probably just be interpreted as "I do not assert",
while "unassertion" can be ju'a naku. Besides, there's always ne'e...

Comment #2: Re: Note

gleki (Sun Jul 19 18:37:13 2015)

spheniscine wrote: > Yes, this is duplicated from ju'acu'i... for two reasons: 1. It's > shorter, and 2. It's becoming somewhat popular to interpret ju'onai as > "uncertainty" rather than "impossibility"; after all, if one wishes to say > "No way that could happen", they could just use ju'o naku la'edi'u fasnu. > Similarly, ju'anai can probably just be interpreted as "I do not assert", > while "unassertion" can be ju'a naku. Besides, there's always ne'e... I'd rather reserve ju'a and ju'anai for the meanings specified by Ithkuil Essence, i.e. what is usually expressed in relative clauses, inner bridi. "allegedly" is iacu'i, "supposedly" is la'acu'i,da'i or even just ju'ocu'i depending on what you mean, "without asserting" is ca'enai.

Comment #3: Re: Note Jonathan (Sun Jul 19 18:56:11 2015) I don't think ca'e is good here. You also suggested it for kai'a; but ca'e is more like "it is true because I say so". It's related to jetrinsku, and I also defined ca'engau based on that doctrine. Comment #4: Re: Note Jonathan (Sun Jul 19 19:02:42 2015) iacu'i is quite close but not a complete replacement. Basically my intention for ju'acu'i / ju'anai is reflected in the "scare quotes" in "That "man" is really a woman" - essentially, this is an explicit marker for "non-veridicality", in a post-xorlo world where lo/le no longer is distinguished that way. Comment #5: Re: Note Jonathan (Sun Jul 19 19:09:00 2015) Unfortunately I don't know Ithkuil, so you're going to have to explain that to me... or perhaps make another cmavo to reflect that meaning. Comment #7: Re: Note gleki (Mon Jul 20 06:00:27 2015) spheniscine wrote: > Unfortunately I don't know Ithkuil, so you're going to have to explain that > to me... or perhaps make another cmavo to reflect that meaning. Just compare mi xusra lo du'u do citka and mi xusra lo du'u go'o i do citka Comment #8: Re: Note Jonathan (Mon Jul 20 06:16:57 2015) So you want ju'anai for mi na xusra or mi to'e xusra ? Comment #9: Re: Note gleki (Mon Jul 20 07:25:52 2015) spheniscine wrote: > So you want ju'anai for mi na xusra or mi to'e xusra ? ju'a is not about xusra-ing anything. It's about wrapping clauses into sumti. Comment #10: Re: Note Jonathan (Mon Jul 20 07:47:41 2015) That seems like a complete redefinition of ju'a to me... Comment #11: Re: Note gleki (Mon Jul 20 07:52:31 2015) spheniscine wrote: > That seems like a complete redefinition of ju'a to me... Main level clause must have something like ju'a implied. Comment #12: Re: Note Jonathan (Tue Jul 21 04:44:21 2015) I'm still not sure what you're talking about. If ju'a isn't defined in terms of xusra, what is it defined as? This even conflicts with xorxes' definition for ju'a. Comment #6: Re: Note Jonathan (Sun Jul 19 19:12:04 2015) I also do have a Lojban definition for ju'acu'i: sinxa lo du'u le cusku cu skicu gi'eku'i na xusra lo du'u le ve skicu cu drani ja mapti