Message-ID: <34956A68.230D@locke.ccil.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 12:35:36 -0500
From: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
Organization: Lojban Peripheral
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lojban List <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: whether (was Re: ni, jei, perfectionism)
References: <199712151651.LAA00730@locke.ccil.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 1092
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Dec 15 12:35:36 1997
X-From-Space-Address: -

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