From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Aug 29 09:56:41 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 29 Aug 2001 16:56:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 70868 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2001 16:54:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Aug 2001 16:54:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.120) by mta3 with SMTP; 29 Aug 2001 16:54:03 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:53:49 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 16:53:49 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] The Knights who forgot to say "ni!" Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 16:53:49 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Aug 2001 16:53:49.0656 (UTC) FILETIME=[2D0EA580:01C130AB] From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e > > I know that they are _defined_ as > > quantity and truth value, but they are _used_ only as property > > and proposition. > >And why do we pay attention to (in some cases deliberate) misuse? "Let >usage >decide" only applies to Lojban usage, not Nalgol. This particular "misuse" is sanctioned by the Codex, which has examples for both the definitional senses of {ni} and {jei}, and for their usage senses. The definitional sense is never used in practice (except perhaps {jei} by And). I never use {jei} because I find {du'u xukau} perfectly satisfactory. In the case of {ni} the matter is less clear, but even the gi'uste has many places marked as (ka/ni). In any case, it is something that does need paying attention to. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp