Toggles grammar so that every mention of a number n is interpreted as "at least n".

If one owns five cats, then in normal Lojban grammar, if they were to say "I have two cats", then they would be incorrect/lying; numbers are exact. But often, allowing for such statements is desirable, at least because one can be less mindful of the exactitude requirement. For example, some criminal statutes say things like "if the defendant has four criminal history points, then...", but they actually mean "if the defendant has four or more criminal history points, then...". Likewise, it is almost always a lie in Lojban to say "I am t years old", because one is almost never exactly t years old (this expression is usually the result of rounding down to the nearest integer or half-integer); one should actually say "I am between t years old and t+1 years old" – but toggling the grammar with this word would more closely approximate the natlang phrase (although an eighty-year-old could still correctly say, perhaps with some philosophical correctness too, that they are six years old). An even number of uses of this word return the grammar back to numeric exactitude. The "at least" interpretation applies to rafsi as well: a car is a bicycle after this word has been used an odd number of times because "bicycle" would actually mean "at-least-two-wheeler". Again, this could have some applicability in law, such as when banning the usage of vehicles, for example. "su'e will operate normally under this word (so, "su'e re" would mean "at most 2" and not "at most at-least-2"; meaning that 3 is definitely excluded from the realm of possible numbers), but "su'o" is converted so as to mean "exactly" (given that it is otherwise useless; in other words, the exactitudes of unmarked numhers and "su'o"-marked ones swap with one another). This word does not affect brivla or modals, unless the former involve numeric rafsi; in particular, "zmadu", "satci", "mau", and the like are not affected. This word affects non-integer numbers as well, as demonstrated by the time example; after this toggle, one could accurately say that Cleopatra died five hundred years ago (because she died ealier than that). Explocit approximation via "ji'i" is unaffected by this word, in a manner similar to "su'e". Technically, "1+1 =2" is still true under this toggle effect because the sum of at least 1 with at least 1 is indeed at least 2. Both exactitude and this modification to it have their respective problem cases, so use each carefully.