Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 14:10:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710201910.OAA06963@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Lee Daniel Crocker Sender: Lojban list From: "Lee Daniel Crocker (none)" Organization: Piclab (http://www.piclab.com/) Subject: Re: ni X-To: Lojban Group X-cc: lojbab@access.digex.net To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <199710201033.DAA22684@red.colossus.net> from "Logical Language Group" at Oct 20, 97 06:25:35 am X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2156 Lines: 39 > I think the place structure of klani, which ought to be somewhat defining > of ni as ckaji is of ka and fasnu of nu and lifri of li'i ... should govern > in the event of uncertainty. Agreed, but we're already dropping the first place if {lifri}: {li'i broda} is a {se lifri}, not a {lifri}, so why shouldn't {ni} do the same thing if it's the more useful and more in line with the refgram usage? If we let {ni} be the raised meaning, then the second "scale" place becomes meaningless since we have no quantifier, and there's no way to get a quantifier in. I think the "number" meaning of {ni} is more consistent with the refgram's examples, twice as useful as the raised meaning, simpler, and we can get the raised meaning in other ways with no hassle: either {to'e ni} or a full {du'u...}. I realize that we want to treat the refgram as "correct by definition", but where the definition is unclear or contradictory, we should clarify with the most rational, useful interpretation; and in this case, the one that causes least disruption to the refgram. If we choose the raised meaning, then all the number examples are wrong, and the definition itself (with the x2 scale place) makes no sense. If we choose the number meaning, then both of those make sense and the others are just sumti raising that we didn't catch: no big deal. >>In most cases ni is used in its raised meaning. Very rarely, >>as in the refgram's 1-B example, is it used as a number. I disagree. I think in practice the number meaning will be much more useful and common, after all, quantities are meant to be measured and compared. And no need for {du}: {ni broda} is a selbri, so you can quantify simply with, e.g., {li piso'i ni broda}. I think it's important that we get this right, otherwise I'd let it slide as {li rau ni ma'a cusku}. -- Lee Daniel Crocker "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC