Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 12:57:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711291757.MAA01060@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: ni, jei, perfectionism X-To: "lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu" To: John Cowan Status: O X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 2367 X-From-Space-Date: Sat Nov 29 12:57:59 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU And summarizes and Lojbab replies: >>{jei} (i) "is truth value of p" [some value on the T--F scale] >> (ii) "whether p is the case" > >I don't see the difference. Any way of communicating ii is some = mapping of >(i) Yes, but the "mapping" is sumti raising .ii zo'o >>{ni} (i) "is the amount to which p is the case" (?) [some kind >> of quasi numerical thing] >> (ii) "how much p is the case" >> >>In each case, (i) is a kind of value or numerical thingy, and >>(ii) is an indirect question. > >I thought indirect qyestions were marked by kau? Exactly, but the ref grammar in one or two examples uses {ni} without = {kau} to translate some indirect questions -- that would be better with = {le ka sela'u ma kau ...} >>There was a long thread on this a month or two ago, which I did >>not participate in. > >And which like all the rest petered out after much volume with no = resolution >and obviously just as much confusion among at least as many people as = >when we >started. Yet I have yet to see a Lojban statement using jei that I did = not >understand. There are a whole list of distinctions that lojban makes that English = doesn't, that we'll have to be careful to make even though we know bad = usage will be perfectly understandable: .o vs .a=20 sumti-raising ni'i vs ki'u vs ri'a vs mu'i vs janai (5 kinds of because) le/lo/lei/loi/... selsau/djuno mi'a/mi'o (me and you or me and others) sumti order when ro, su'o, naku, etc. are involved I think these things are important, and so I think the practical = criterion for good lojban has got to be slightly stricter than just = understandability. Nonetheless I do generally agree with Lojbab that there is a certain = level of detail beyond which perfectionism doesn't buy us much. The = dual meanings of {ni} are ugly, but it just isn't that bad, considering = that in practice we have no hope of eliminating every single similar = flaw. It's worth pointing out and discussing, I think, but maybe it's = sufficient to conclude that "we have a pair of homonyms here; Lojban = isn't perfect". Jorge may choose not to use the word(s) {ni}, but = Lojbab will probably use them, with the reference grammar as = justification, and so it's to J's advantage to at least agree to = recognize both meanings when L uses them. chris