Another idea is to invent a quantity interval marker similar to "fe'e". Maybe "ka'ai", and do:

ka'ai pu'o klina
"almost transparent"

ka'ai co'a klina
"barely transparent"

>>795

I'm not very concerned about the exact meaning of "klina". If it doesn't correspond exactly to "transparent", we can use another word that fits better. I'm more interested in "almost". We could instead think of "almost correct" (=not correct, though close), "almost late" (not late, though close), "almost there" (not there, though close), "almost flying" (not flying, though close) and so on.

I don't see much point in restricting the CAI intensifiers to apply to UI-words only, syntactically they attach to whatever word they follow, but if one must, one could assume something like "je'u".

>>797
>>798

Those are meant for "barely transparent", right? "Almost" is negative, and all of those are affirmative.

>>801

They are meant for "almost transparent". They are not fully affirmative but almost affirmative. In "jo'acu'i klina" I stop short of saying "Yes! It's transparent.", while retaining the positive sense i.e. being not "jo'anai klina" or "na'i klina".

I thought "almost" could be positive also in the sense that it's more than the medium or "no'e" and approximate to the max or "je'a/ja'a". Is it really practical to reduce the entire range below 100% to negative? We have the gloss "almost all" for "so'a". I guess I can say "pi so'a lo ni klina" and mean "almost all of the degree of transparency". Imagine a wall of smart glass ( http://www.inhabitat.com/images/privaliteglass_copy.jpg ): when I turn it up to 95% of transparency (i.e. pi so'a lo ni klina), I can say "the wall is almost transparent". Is this value of almost/so'a necessarily negative? It's not 100% but still on the side of above-the-medium, 51-100%, which I think is often considered a positive zone in everyday life.

Isn't it just "le selbri" and "the relation"? Or are you looking for a word for the brivla which determines the base place structure?

There's the archive:

http://jbo.jbotcan.org/en/arch/res/

The vocative phrase is a free modifier, they are not terbri. That means they can be used after almost any word. The other free modifiers are:

TO text /TOI/
SEI [terms [CU]] selbri /SEhU/
SOI sumti [sumti] /SEhU/
(number | lerfu-string) MAI
XI (number | lerfu-string) /BOI/
XI VEI mex /VEhO/

> Why are some emotions "propositional", "pure", "miscellaneous", "complex", and "simple"?

The important distinction is between "pure" and "propositonal" emotions, also known as "realis" and "irrealis" respectively. Pure emotion indicators are used to mention how you feel without affecting any claims, while propositional emotion indicators change any claim made into a claim about how you feel.

Examples:
"do puvi zvati" claims that you were nearby.
"ui do puvi zvati" claims that you were nearby, and that that makes/made the speaker feel happy (a pure emotion indicator).
"a'o do puvi zvati" claims that the speaker hopes/hoped you were nearby, without claiming that you were or weren't (a propositional emotion indicator).

As far as I know, the distinction between simple, complex, and miscellaneous emotions was just an attempt to classify the emotion indicators into groups that would fit neatly into the morphology of UI. The UI words can be divided up into groups by their first letter:

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>780

So there isn't an elided "ku" (as well as a sumti) after "pu" in "lo pu se zvati"? I thought it was of the form "LE tag [sumti] [ku] broda [ku]".

>>781

No, there is no elided KU in "tag selbri".

Also, "tag KU" and "tag sumti" are two different constructs. There is no KU after the sumti in "tag sumti". (There may be a KU inside the sumti, if it is of "LE selbri KU" form, but if the sumti is KOhA or LA CMEVLA for example, there is no KU.)

In the grammar, 'tag[ku]', 'tag selbri', and 'tag (LE/LA selbri [ku])' are different constructs, but for us mere mortals it's easier to think of tags as 'tag [LE/LA selbri] [ku]'.

Examples:
mi pu le vanci ku [cu] cliva
mi pu le vanci cu cliva
mi puku [cu] cliva
mi pu cu cliva
mi [cu] pu cliva

Semantically, "le vanci" is the tense origin (the thing I depart before), and when it's elided it's assumed to be now, the time of speaking. Technically, "pu cliva" is considered a selbri (meaning you can use it to make a sumti with LE/LA), while "puku cliva" and "pu cu cliva" are considered a tag followed by a selbri. I think that's what the confusion is about.

I hope this helped to clarify things.

There's somewhat of a tradition of using -vla for morphological classes.

So maybe cnivla are all VV (and V'V) words? That suggests an extension: maybe VV, VVV, VVVV, etc. should be semi-reserved for emotion words? Then we can call all vowel-only words cnivla (except monoletterals).

>>771

[zo'o] Sounds like you pro-"the-word-'cnivla' means 'emotions'-only-words".

I would not say that all cnivla (in the widest sense of the word when applied to attitudinals) are contain only vowels. There are a bunch of modifiers and categories that start with consonants. This suggests to me that we need even another level of the zifma'ojutsi classification system: the emotions (such as [zo <<.iu>>]), and the rest (possibly broken into smaller categories).

So, let's see what words we have and/or need (in order growing more specific descendingly):

1) jbovla
2) brivla - cmene - cmavo
3) under cmavo (listing only one example): zifma'o (temporary term; can apply to a very large category of words, I expect)
4) words of selma'o UI (which may or may not be the same thing as entry #3) - vocatives
5) cnivla - discursives - evidentials

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>772

#7 is subsequent to #6's "modifiers"

It's always been really slow for me as well. I think it got significantly worse when the Livejournal community was included at the bottom of the front page; I'm guessing it's simply loading and parsing the RSS each time rather than keeping a local copy that is updated periodically.

>>684

I am not sure whether the use of [zo <<gusna'a] precisely means what they want.

>>693

In general, it is not possible to predict the meaning of a lujvo from its components, although there are guidelines. "gusna'a" for "x1 is x2 light-years in length" is not the most typical derivation, but nothing in principle prevents it. In order to argue successfully against it we would need: (a) some other (hopefully useful) meaning for that lujvo, and (b) some other convenient way to express the meaning "distance travelled by light in one year". I think it will be hard to beat "gusna'a" for that.

I've been thinking about how to translate "light-year". Lujvo place structures are usually derived from the place structures of their components, so at first glance gusna'a would be a type of year. (Yes, I know you don't have to derive place structures this way, but it makes lujvo easier to figure out if you do.)

gusmuvrau (gusni muvdu gradu, "light-movement unit") looks nice, except that a light-year is a measurement of distance, not movement. muvrau might be translated "unit of speed", e.g., meters per second, miles per hour, etc.

gutci ("short non-metric distance unit") is used in compounds to make specific distance units: jmagutci ("foot cubit" == foot), degygutci ("finger cubit" == inch). minli ("long non-metric distance unit") presumably can be used the same way. gusminli ("light mile") seems like the best translation for the distance units including light-year, light-minute, light-second, light-century, etc. The x3 place of minli can be used to specialize the unit to light-year: "gusminli be fi pa nanca". "nanca gusminli" also works, and is shorter than na'arkemgusminli.

papimu gigdo be pa nanca gusminli
"1.5 billion of one year light-mile"

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.