--- In lojban@y..., "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@h...> wrote:
>
> la xod cusku di'e
>
> >Going back a moment, "le jei broda" = a truth value; a real in [0,
1]. The
> >ANSWER to the question "xu broda" is the same.
>
> Not really, at least not the full answer. The full answer to
> {xu broda} is either {ja'a broda} or {na broda}, or if you like
> something in between: {ja'aru'e broda}, etc. The full answer
> is never a real in [0,1], and {le du'u xukau ...} makes reference
> to the full answer, a full bridi.
This kind of has to be true, but unfortunately may be at odds with the
RefGram (I'm too lazy to look it up). I'm referring not so much to
{jei} but another abstractor: {ni}. The refgram even contradicts
itself. Consider chapter 11:
## Semantically, a sumti with ``le ni'' is a number...
And yet, we have the example sentence
## le pixra cu cenba le ni ce'u blanu
## The picture varies in blueness.
But if a {ni} abstraction is a number, then the sentence really means
something like "The picture varies in .138"! This is the same problem
as {jei} (since {jei} is sort of like {ni} with a restricted range).