In a message dated 9/17/2001 11:50:59 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:
<You are saying that {le ka ce'u barda} is more {le ka xukau ce'u barda} I am not saying that in general, though with {dunli} and {frica} it works out that way. I don't yet react properly to {ka} where {du'u} is what I expect, but even after I get over that, the two are structurally very different and would in many cases give different results. I don't see the first ast like either of the last two because the last two bring in factors that are not mentioned in the first and we are now working in the environement where what is not mentioned is assumed non-controversial, while thre alst two make these unmentioneds matters of point. The {xukau} is allowable because -- in this context -- it is relevantly connected to the first. The difference becomes more clear by considering what happens with. But I do not take the third place of {dunli} or {frica} as asserting anything, as you do with {le ka ce'u barda} , but rather as describing the area where the sameness/difference lies, as you do with the other two. I would say not "in that they are big" but "in bigness" or "in the propertyof being big." Then there is a uniform interpretation of that place and no semantic dissonance in the {frica} case (in the {dunli} case as well, since it would be true if neither was big). <><>There is also the ever popular "in how big they are" > >{le du'u [I think, maybe {nu}] makau ni ce'u barda}. I knowyou don't >like > >this {ni}, but I don't understand any other one, and it fits nicely here >as > >does "in size" (le ni ce'u barda}. > >Each would be acceptable to me, but not both. They correspond >to the two most common meanings {ni} has.> > >Since I think they are equivalent and both derived from {le ni la djumbos >barda na du le ni la tamtum barda}, I don't even understand what your "two >meanings" mean. ni1 broda = jai sela'u broda ni2 broda = ka broda sela'u makau They are as different as {le broda} and {le du'u makau broda}, same difference.> Well, it is certainly NOT the same difference as between {le broda} and{le du'u makau broda}, since one of these is a thing and the other is a claim, while one of the {ni} a property of a quantity and the other a property of claims (or a set of claims). What And made me realize yesterday was that I have been skimming your point too quickly, focusing on thefiddling with the bridi -- whether the quantity was just attached bya BAI or shifted to the first place in a complex compounding. I should have noticed the accompanying shift of the abstractor, from {ka} to {jai} (and thought abit more about what the BAI -- {sela'u} -- modified). Part of the problem is an old one in the fuzzy business, mixing truth-values with membership values (I used to do it until Belknap corrected meenough times). You claim that {ni} has had that confusion. I don't think I have ever used it in the truth-value way and can't find any clear cases of anyone else doing so (but, by the nature of the problem,clear cases are hard to find). You did not help clarify things by leaving the {sela'u} in the truth-value case, making it look like another membership-value case -- to one who was only attending carefully to the bridi. To be sure, the two factors can go together: that such-and-such is the membership value is a claim which also has a truth value, but the two are separable (as the fact that they can be confused shows) and one step at atime seems the best approach. Anyhow, I think I now see your point. I have (I think) been using {ni} consistently in your {n12} sense (the other is {jai}) -- or almost. I think that I have taken {ni ko'e broda} as a property of a quantity, not as an indirect question property. So, {le ni ko'e broda} evaluates to a number, not a property. I have some difficulty figuring out what theproeprty involved here is, since there is neither a {ce'u} nor a first term in the one give, but I assume this is meant to be a case of elided first term, so it is the property of a thing which broda to whatever extent {makau} turns out to be. All of this looks like a good case for standardizing all this stuff, which seems to ahve gotten too diverse too quickly. With the result that what looks to be the same claim is totally different in the two readings -- indeed the cross readings make no sense. <You can go from one to the other systematically, but you can't use one where the other makes sense. One is a proposition-type object, the other is not.> It turns out that I am not, but a third notion of {ni} ("plain old {ni}," I would say) that resembles each of your partially -- it is a quantity, like {ni1} and attaches to the connection between sumti and selbri, like {ni2}. <I don't object to {le ni2 ce'u broda}, nor to {le du'u makau ni1 ce'u broda}. In the latter case, ce'u belongs to {du'u}, not to {ni1}. It would be more clear perhaps to say {le ka makau ni1 ce'u broda}.> No, in the second case (and always) {ce'u} belongs to {ni}, not {du'u} -- it is minimal scope. So, saying {ka} in this case would confuse the issue. <Using both meanings of {ni} is of course extremely confusing, so I try to avoid it.> Back atcha. Do try to stick to plain old {ni} and avoid introducing two totally new concepts into the picture, neither, as it turns out, justified by the data (outside your usage perhaps). |