Date:  Wed, 15 Oct 1997 11:35:12 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710151635.LAA12293@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Organization: University of Central Lancashire
Subject:      Re: Jorge's right re: ni
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 632
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Oct 15 11:35:21 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

Kris:
> But on to {ni}: I think the reference grammar is inconsistent, and
> confuses the two types of reference to numbers.  If you want to refer to a
> number as a simple mathematical object, you should use a BAI modal,
> probably {sela'u}.  If you want to talk about the fact that a particular
> number applies, you should use {ni}

This makes sense, but is it correct? At least at one time we
were agreed that {jei} refers to a truth value and not the
fact that a given tv is tv of the proposition in the jei
clause. (We therefore used {xukau} instead, and I many
months later showed how it is doable in ordinary logic.)

--And