From xod@sixgirls.org Wed Aug 29 10:39:39 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 29 Aug 2001 17:39:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 47727 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2001 17:38:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Aug 2001 17:38:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta3 with SMTP; 29 Aug 2001 17:38:42 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.6/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f7THcff08448 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 13:38:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 13:38:40 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] The Knights who forgot to say "ni!" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Jorge Llambias wrote: > > 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). What are the differences between the usage & definitional senses of {ni} and {jei}? Can you give 4 examples? > > I never use {jei} because I find {du'u xukau} perfectly > satisfactory. If they are equivalent (I'd like to see somebody argue that they are not!) why not use jei as it's shorter? ----- "It is not enough that an article is new and useful. The Constitution never sanctioned the patenting of gadgets. [...] It was never the object of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufactures." -- Supreme Court Justice Douglas, 1950