Subject: Re: [lojban] The Knights who forgot to say "ni!"

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 11:18:27 EDT

In a message dated 8/29/2001 12:08:10 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> > 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}.
> 
> 
> 
> Because there is a difference between {ni ce'u prami kei} and {ni prami
> ce'u kei}. However, it is true that I really don't know what {ni ce'u
> prami ce'u kei} means.
> 

If we don't know what any of them mean (and I think we don't really) then how 
do we know that they are different, other than graphically.

I take {ni} with {ce'u} to be -- as {ce'u} suggests -- a function that gives 
different values for different replacements of {ce'u}, so {ni} with and 
without {ce'u} exactly parallel {ka} and {du'u} -- in that limited sense. 
The function types are very different.