Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 11:54:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710171654.LAA26566@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: abstractors X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 1549 X-From-Space-Date: Fri Oct 17 11:54:25 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Chris: > On Thu, 16 Oct 1997, JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS wrote: > > >3. Are ni and ka redundant, strictly speaking? Given du`u and nu > > > and ce`u, is there anything that they can't do but ni and ka > > > can? > > > > Well, du'u would be redundant to ka, since ce'u is supposed > > to be used with ka. And yes, ni is definitely redundant. > > Could {nu} be defined as {ka fau makau}? I don't think so. John has very elegantly proposed treating du`u as a variant of ka that indicates no implicit ce`u. A du`u/ka is an abstract object, like a number, that is not part of the material world. But a nu is a portion of the material world: {nu broda} is that portion of the material world that is sufficient to make {broda} true. Jorge: > >2. If {ni} was "clarified" to Option 2, could {jei} be redefined > > as "whether"? At the moment {jei} is parallel to option 1, > > but Option 2 seems usefuller. > > I suppose I agree. But I've been complaining about this > dichotomy for years without much success. Both modalities > of jei and ni made it to the refgram examples. Personally > I never use {jei}, and I think I will abandon {ni} as well, > which I haven't used much anyway. If {jei} meant "whether", then it would be straightforward to do subordinate interrogative clauses by means of quantifiers rather than by means of Q-kau. Thus instead of {djuno le du`u ma kau klama} you could have {ro da zo`u djuno le jei da klama} I would like to be able to do that. ........................ BTW, does li`i involve a ce`u too? --And.