Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 16:20:06 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712152120.QAA09909@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Organization: Lojban Peripheral Subject: Re: whether (was Re: ni, jei, perfectionism) To: Lojban List Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1126 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Dec 15 16:20:08 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU And Rosta wrote: > > Jorge to Lojbab: > > To see the difference between {ce'u} and {makau} it is useful > > to consider examples where they appear together. For instance: > > > > la rik zmadu la alis le ka ce'u mitre makau > > Rick exceeds Alice in how much they measure. > > > > {ce'u} stands for the holder of the property, in this case Rick > > and Alice. {makau} is the question that has to be answered, > > in this case in order to make a comparison. > > BTW, this type of Q-kau that we get with zmadu and frica (and > certain other selbri) is semantically very different from > the sort we get with epistemic selbri. The essence of Q-kau here > is where we have two variables, where the value of each depends > on the value of the other. > > Currently I think that it is glico influence that makes us use > Q-kau here. That said, it is the only way to do it if we > insist on using {zmadu/frica fi le ka}. I agree, and suggest that "ni [ce'u] mitre" is the Right Thing. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban