From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Aug 29 15:51:33 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 29 Aug 2001 22:51:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 44946 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2001 22:51:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Aug 2001 22:51:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.158) by mta2 with SMTP; 29 Aug 2001 22:51:32 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 15:51:32 -0700 Received: from 200.69.11.66 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 22:51:32 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.66] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] The Knights who forgot to say "ni!" Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 22:51:32 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Aug 2001 22:51:32.0498 (UTC) FILETIME=[25E86F20:01C130DD] From: "Jorge Llambias" la xod cusku di'e >What are the differences between the usage & definitional senses of {ni} >and {jei}? Can you give 4 examples? Book pg 263-4, 6.3, 7.3, 7.6 are all usage sense. They can all be replaced by {du'u xukau}. 6.1 and 6.2 are an attempt at definitional use, but apparently could not be fitted very meaningfully into any selbri. As for {ni}, example 5.5 on page 261 is typical usage, it can be replaced by {ka sela'u makau}. I can't be sure of 5.3 because I don't quite understand how mo'e works, we have varying definitions for that one too. A dimensioned number in this example doesn't work (it couldn't be subtracted to dimensionless 1). So does that mean that {ni} is a number? In that case {ni broda} would be more or less equivalent to {jai sela'u broda}. Thus we would have: Definitional sense: ni broda = jai sela'u broda Usage sense: ni broda = ka sela'u makau broda > > 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? For starters, because of the double definition of {jei}, but mainly because I prefer not to treat this kind of indirect question differently than the others. I have never been bothered by the extra syllables in this case. (In other cases, e.g. in {la'e di'u}, the number of syllables is almost unbearable, I don't know why.) mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp