Re: [lojban] Re: ka + makau (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la ~mark cusku di'e

> I'm referring not so much to
> {jei} but another abstractor: {ni}.  The refgram even contradicts
> itself.

Yes it does. I have pointed out this contradiction before, which
is more or less the same kind of double meaning that jei gets:
one in the definition and another one (the indirect question one)
in actual usage.

(Another abstractor that suffers more or less from this is
{su'u}, which as far as I know has only been used in the
sense of {nu tai makau}, as in {ko viska le nu lei smacu
cu bajra tai makau} =? {ko viska le su'u lei smacu cu bajra}.)

> In order to use {ni} as it's used pretty much by everyone everywhere,
> we have to say that a {ni} abstraction is also a sort of indirect
> question, sort of like {du'u broda sela'i makau}.

Actually, it is mostly used as {ni ce'u broda}={ka ce'u broda
sela'i makau}.

> {jei} SHOULD thus be {du'u
> xukau}, but was prevented from being so by people saying "well, it
> expands to a [0,1] value!"

Exactly. Defining it as "the truth value of" pretty much means
that, though.

> Am I raving?

Not at all.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp