In a message dated 9/18/2001 10:32:51 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:
Almost every use is ni2. For example, example 5.5 in pg 261: Ahah! It must be a property because it goes in the {cenba3} whichtakes a property. And we know it takes a property because the gismu list says it does. And the cmavo list makes a mistake in sayingthat {ni} is an amount, not a property. By the same reasoning, {ni} must be an amount because the cmavo list says it is and so the gismu list makes a mistake in saying that {cenba3} must be a property. Personally, I tend to trust the cmavo list above the gismu list, but that is just a personal preference -- for which I have reasons, of course, but no definite proof. And there are cases where I would go the other way. I suppose you have cases where you would go my way, but this is not one of them. Still, the gismu list has proven particularly unreliable about what has to go in various places: {ka} in particular has often meant only "abstract" rather than specifically {ka}, because few other abstractions had been usedmuch when Refgram was written. <I would say: mi mitre li papibi le ni ce'u clani = mi mitre li papibi le ka ce'u clani sela'u makau la tamtum cu mutce le ni ce'u barda = la tamtum cu mutce le ka ce'u barda sela'u makau How do you do it?> Your firsts look fine, albeit roundabout; your seconds are also fine but even more roundabout. li papibi ni mi clano kei lo se mitre li so'e ni la djumbos barda [maybe {li mo'e le ka mutce} to be fancy about it] <The problem is when you try to force functions in places that take properties.> Hey, functions and properties are all the same sorts of critters. And, as I have said, it seems to me that the list uses {ka} in just this ambiguus way. <>(It occurs to me that at some point you said that the >answers to questions where what replaced the q-kau, not what replaced the >whole question. Arrgggggghhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I argued for a month with xod that they are not. I am obviously failing to convey to you the different meanings of {jai sela'u broda} and {ka broda sela'u makau}. I can't put it more clear than that, one is a number, the other a property.> Sorry if I have gotten you wrong on this. I take your ambiguous cry as meaning that you do NOT hold that answers are what replace the q-kau. But you are the one who objected to one formulation of the set-of -answers theory of questions by saying that it had to be wrong bcause it was not { George, Sam,....}, which looked like that position. <Ok, according to you, their mother is the difference, to me who their mother is is the difference. To you, the amount is the difference, to me, what the amount is is the difference. It seems I can't convince you that what you're doing is using a relative clause where you should use an indirect question, something that English certainly allows, but Lojban, the way I understand it, does not. And you certainly won't convince me that a function with ce'u will do instead of a property with ce'u and makau, so I think this is how far we will get with this.> Well, I would have said "their mothers" "the amounts" and so on, but, yes, that is where we disagree. And, of course, my view is in the Refgram, yours is not. But, now that I understand what your point is (giving the whole argument as clarly as you finally have would have saved a lotof trouble. Maybe, or maybe it just took me a long time to put it together), I see that we will end up disagreeing as long as we are separated by this basic difference in what to follow as a guide. Since my view encompasses yours and makes for a nice general theory, I think I'll stick with it. |