Re: [lojban] Re: ji'i

[Chris Capel <pdf23ds@gmail.com>]

On 8/8/05, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.hn.org> wrote:
> An approximate range is properly specified by using {ji'i} with some
> word from BIhI. {ji'i} alone should not be used so.

Ahh. In CLL example 14.16.1 (if it can be applied to quantity as well
as location intervals), it would seem that the intended sense of {pa
ji'i re roi} can be captured either by {pa bi'i re roi}, or,
/slightly/ more explicitly, {ji'i pa bi'i re roi}. In the former, the
approximateness is inherent in the fact that you're using a range to
describe something that can only be a definite quantity (if that's the
case, as it is in the Alice sentence). Otherwise, ji'i can be added to
make it explicit.

Would this be accurate? If so, there's no need of the range (interval)
sense of {ji'i} I was talking about, since that meaning's pretty much
captured by {bi'i} alone in most cases.

Chris Capel
-- 
"What is it like to be a bat? What is it like to bat a bee? What is it
like to be a bee being batted? What is it like to be a batted bee?"
-- The Mind's I (Hofstadter, Dennet)