Message-ID: <3444C6DD.6F3C@locke.ccil.org> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 09:36:29 -0400 From: John Cowan Organization: Lojban Peripheral X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lojban List Subject: Re: Jorge's right re: ni References: <199710142150.QAA04523@locke.ccil.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1018 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Oct 15 09:36:29 1997 X-From-Space-Address: - Chris Bogart wrote: > By analogy with this example, I claim that whenever you have a simple > sumti with arguments connected by {be}, the main bridi doesn't claim > anything about those {be} arguments, except that they help identify > the one place that's privileged by being connected to the {le} gadri. I think this is a property of "le"; remember that "le broda" needn't be a broda. "lo gerku be la sankt. bernard." is not only veridically a dog, but veridically a St. Bernard. > But on to {ni}: I knew damn well when I wrote that that I was skating on thin ice, probably the thinnest ice in the whole refgram except for the second-order logic stuff (which is also being discussed now). It's damn near impossible to explain what you yourself do not understand. :-) I read JCB's various remarks on the subject, and lojbab's, and I still don't really know what "ni" is doing in the language, or how it should be construed. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban