From pycyn@aol.com Wed Aug 29 08:21:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 29 Aug 2001 15:21:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 95918 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2001 15:18:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Aug 2001 15:18:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r02.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.98) by mta3 with SMTP; 29 Aug 2001 15:18:40 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.170.26100 (4353) for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 11:18:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <170.26100.28be61c3@aol.com> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 11:18:27 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_170.26100.28be61c3_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10243 --part1_170.26100.28be61c3_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/29/2001 12:08:10 AM Central Daylight Time, xod@sixgirls.org writes: > > Why use {ce'u} at all for {ni}? {ni} can only refer to one amount, so there > > would be no problem at all with using {ke'a}. > > > > Because there is a difference between {ni ce'u prami kei} and {ni prami > ce'u kei}. However, it is true that I really don't know what {ni ce'u > prami ce'u kei} means. > If we don't know what any of them mean (and I think we don't really) then how do we know that they are different, other than graphically. I take {ni} with {ce'u} to be -- as {ce'u} suggests -- a function that gives different values for different replacements of {ce'u}, so {ni} with and without {ce'u} exactly parallel {ka} and {du'u} -- in that limited sense. The function types are very different. --part1_170.26100.28be61c3_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/29/2001 12:08:10 AM Central Daylight Time,
xod@sixgirls.org writes:



> Why use {ce'u} at all for {ni}? {ni} can only refer to one amount, so there
> would be no problem at all with using {ke'a}.



Because there is a difference between {ni ce'u prami kei} and {ni prami
ce'u kei}. However, it is true that I really don't know what {ni ce'u
prami ce'u kei} means.




If we don't know what any of them mean (and I think we don't really) then how
do we know that they are different, other than graphically.

I take {ni} with {ce'u} to be -- as {ce'u} suggests -- a function that gives
different values for different replacements of {ce'u}, so {ni} with and
without {ce'u} exactly parallel {ka} and {du'u} -- in that limited sense.  
The function types are very different. --part1_170.26100.28be61c3_boundary--