From rob@twcny.rr.com Tue Aug 28 21:42:03 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@telenet.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 29 Aug 2001 04:42:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 74216 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2001 04:42:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Aug 2001 04:42:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO telenet.net) (204.97.152.225) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Aug 2001 04:42:02 -0000 Received: from riff (ip-209-23-14-69.modem.logical.net [209.23.14.69]) by telenet.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA30458 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 00:42:00 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 15bxAZ-0000A2-00 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 00:41:39 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 00:41:39 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] The Knights who forgot to say "ni!" Message-ID: <20010829004139.B551@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: <94.1909992e.28bd969c@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <94.1909992e.28bd969c@aol.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com Sender: Rob Speer From: Rob Speer On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 08:51:40PM -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote: > Well, I have trouble with the first line, that {ni} and {ka} are similar. > What is the role of {ce'u} in {ni}, which is apparently a quantity and so a > complete object, not a function and so incomplete. I can, in fact, imagine a > functional sense of {ni} and {ce'u} may be a very efficient way to do that: > ko'a frica ko'e le ni ce'u prami la meris. > But that has to wait until we understand what is a good first argument for > {ni prami}, which we don't really have yet. Why use {ce'u} at all for {ni}? {ni} can only refer to one amount, so there would be no problem at all with using {ke'a}. -- Rob Speer