Date:  Fri, 17 Oct 1997 20:23:59 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710180123.UAA13768@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: "Lee Daniel Crocker (none)" <lcrocker@MERCURY.COLOSSUS.NET>
Organization: Piclab (http://www.piclab.com/)
Subject:      Re: Jorge's right re: ni
X-To:         Lojban Group <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To:  <199710171440.HAA21330@red.colossus.net> from "John Cowan" at Oct
              17, 97 10:14:49 am
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 3090
Lines: 65

After re-reading all the postings on this subject, re-reading
the refgram carefully, and brushing up on my philosophy a bit,
I am forced to agree with Jorge as well that {ni} is being used
with two meanings here, and that I will have to give up my
earlier {mi nelci le ni ta ninmu}, which, while grammatical,
does say that I like a pure number in and of itself.

The two meanings of {le ni} that are being used, as I can best
explain it, are (1) a pure number, an amount, such as might fit
into {le se kanli}; and (2) the /proposition/ that some number
applies to some bridi, such as might fit into {se djuno} or
{se krici}.  I think he's right that you can't know a number,
you know some propostion involving that number.  And one prop-
osition can't be greater than another, only numbers. [Note also
that as Jorge has pointed out, {kanli} now has the quantifier
in x2 rahter than x1, so presumably what used to be {la'u} is
not {sela'u}].

To concretize, let me use an example with sumti that show the
distinction well:

  1a  {le canko cu kanli sela'u li piso'u}
      the door is open in quantity: a tiny bit

or the equivalent rearrangement:

  1b  {li piso'u cu jai sela'u kanli fai le canko}
      a tiny bit is the extent by which is open, the door

Now I want to say something about the extent to which the door
is open.  Perhaps I want to compare it to some other amount of
openness, or say that you logically deduced it from a draft.
In the former case, we need a number; in the latter, a proposition
that fits into {se jogji}: a {du'u}.

So how would we say these two things?

  2a  {[some other quantity] zmadu le jai sela'u kanli fai le canko}
      [quantity] exceeds the extent by which is open, the door

  2b  {mi lojgi le du'u le canko cu kanli sela'u makau}
      I deduce [the proposition] to what extent the door is open

So which is {le ni le canko cu kanli}?  Does it fit 2a or 2b?  I
think the cleanest possible conclusion from the refgram is 2a; {le ni}
is a pure number, and {le se ni} is the scale/standard.

So {ni} is still very useful (because {le jai sela'u broda} is both
awkward and has no place for scale), but we must give up using {le ni}
in places where a {le du'u} is called for.  So, my liking the amount
of womanlyness in someone is {mi nelci le du'u ta ninmu sela'u makau},
but Jane's womanlyness exceeding Mary's can still use {ni}: {le ni la
djein. ninmu cu zmadu le ni la meris. ninmu}, and I can say {li rau
ni la meris. ninmu} "Mary is sufficiently womanly", even add a
scale/standard if I like in x2 of the {ni} selbri.

I'm still undecided about how to put real units into there; Jorge
puts {le ka mitre}, etc., in the "scale" place.  I'll have to think
about that one some more.

--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html>
"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