Date:  Mon, 8 Dec 1997 12:18:24 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199712081718.MAA12392@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: ni, jei, perfectionism
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 1153
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Dec  8 12:18:30 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

Lojbab to Jorge:
> >In my opinion many people started to use
> >{le du'u xukau} instead of {le jei} thanks to one of those discussions,
>
> "many people"?  I don't think "many people" have used EITHER le jei or
> le du'u xukau.  Most people who have done stuff in the langauge have been
> doing translations, and it just doesn't come up much in literature.

I don't know how much is "much" in your judgement, but in my
judgement indirect questions are very ordinary and commonplace.

> >>But in any case, it does not appear that there has been a lot of usage of
> >>jei in any form since the whole issue of indirect questions was raised.
> >
> >Right. Perhaps that happened as a result of the discussion? {jei} becomes
> >practically useless if not used as an indirect question.
>
> No, it merely gets restricted to its original purpose, which had nothing to
> do with indirect questions.  I agree it is not the type of thing that is
> frequently needed, but then this is true of at leats half the cmavo.
> Iff we ever return to fuzzy logic, jei will be more useful.

I wouldn't have thought that would make it more useful. Tell us
how it would.

--And