Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 13:00:22 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712021800.NAA25032@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: ni, jei, perfectionism X-To: jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Status: RO Content-Length: 1701 Lines: 32 >{jei} is defined in the refgram both as a truth value, and as an >indirect question involving truth values. I claim that the refgrammar does not define the second. I will agree that Chap 11, 6.3) appears to contain an unmarked sumti-raising which would require a tu'a on the x2 to be ideal. I think that we will find that there are other usages in the refgrammar that have hidden sumti-raising which makes them less than perfect examples of the language in light of the given English translation. But the fact that an example is not entirely consistent with the text describing the principle does not make the text definition incorrect. I can accept that the refgrammar examples will have logical flaws, especially with regard to their given English translations, while upholding the refgrammar as a baseline standard. (Resolving an apparent inconsistencey between the rst of the section and 6.3) merely requires that I analyze that the English transaltion given for 6.3) does indeed reflect a sumtiraising of an indirect question. Neither the translation nor the text discussion indicate that the indirect question was supposed to be the meaning of the jei. Hmm I wonder how that example would be taken if the usage had been "le jeikau ..." lojbab ---- lojbab lojbab@access.digex.net Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: ftp.access.digex.net /pub/access/lojbab or see Lojban WWW Server: href="http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/" Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.