From pycyn@aol.com Wed Aug 29 16:32:49 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 29 Aug 2001 23:32:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 39215 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2001 23:32:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Aug 2001 23:32:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r05.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.101) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Aug 2001 23:32:48 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.64.12980e3f (3893) for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 19:32:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <64.12980e3f.28bed59d@aol.com> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 19:32:45 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] The Knights who forgot to say "ni!" To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_64.12980e3f.28bed59d_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10278 --part1_64.12980e3f.28bed59d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/29/2001 3:49:13 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: > On this issue, which I'm agnostic about, it seems plausible that > whoever wrote the definitions was (na'e mabla) incompetent and that > the intention was for jei to mean "whether" and ni to mean "how much". > There are examples in The Book that support these meanings. So it > is open to debate how binding the mahoste definitions should be seen > as being. > ignotum per ignotius and so back to the earlier thread on "indirect questions" (for want of a much needed better word). --part1_64.12980e3f.28bed59d_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/29/2001 3:49:13 PM Central Daylight Time,
a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:



On this issue, which I'm agnostic about, it seems plausible that
whoever wrote the definitions was (na'e mabla) incompetent and that
the intention was for jei to mean "whether" and ni to mean "how much".
There are examples in The Book that support these meanings. So it
is open to debate how binding the mahoste definitions should be seen
as being.




ignotum per ignotius and so back to the earlier thread on "indirect
questions" (for want of a much needed better word). --part1_64.12980e3f.28bed59d_boundary--