Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 06:30:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710201130.GAA23401@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: tremau X-To: jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2587 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Oct 20 06:30:42 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU > >So what is the difference, and can you come up with an example where >>the value of ni broda is different for these two definitions (or maybe >>you have and I don't understand). > >Well, the x3 of zmadu can't take a number, so any example that >uses ni there would correspond to the second definition. I think I will accept this and say I was wrong before, now that we seem to be using the same meaning of "number" %^). >All right, then you do see what I mean. You're saying that ni has the >abstract meaning, not the unraised quantifier meaning. 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. > >>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'm not sure which is 1-B - i'm using the real book %^) Presuming that >this >>is the "amount of blue" subtraction example, it is confusing because of >>the use of mo'e, which is anything but clearly defined - > >It sounds like a cop out, but I guess since nobody knows how mo'e works > you can get away with it. I'll agree that it is a copout. After all the Book cannot be wrong %^). It may be vague, and I'd even concede that there may be an E-trans that is inaccurate because of the weakness of our undertsanding of English and its fuzzy semantics. The Lojban of course NEVER has an unrecognized sumti raising - it is merely that the English doesn't quite mean what we thought it meant $%)>It sounds like a cop out, but I guess since nobody knows how mo'e works > you can get away with it. Then we all agree that something like: > > *le ni la djan cu ricfu cu du li piso'i > >is nonsense? (The correct way to express what would be meant by >that is {la djan cu ricfu sela'u li piso'i}.) Actually, I thoink the correct way is to replace "du" by "klani". I ALWQAYS assume that any usage of "du" is wrong at this point, and reflects someone not quite understandings omething %^) We shouldn't need du except in Mex and the implicit po'u/no'u circumstances. lojbab ---- lojbab lojbab@access.digex.net Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: ftp.access.digex.net /pub/access/lojbab or see Lojban WWW Server: href="http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/" Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.