Subject: Re: [lojban] noxemol ce'u

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 12:21:31 EDT

In a message dated 9/17/2001 11:50:59 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> <You are saying that {le ka ce'u barda} is more {le ka xukau ce'u barda}
> than {le ka ce'u barda makau} or {le ka ce'u barda sela'u makau} or
> any other of the myriad kau-types we could put in there. I don't agree.>

I am not saying that in general, though with {dunli} and {frica} it works 
out that way. I don't yet react properly to {ka} where {du'u} is what I 
expect, but even after I get over that, the two are structurally very 
different and would in many cases give different results. I don't see the 
first ast like either of the last two because the last two bring in factors 
that are not mentioned in the first and we are now working in the 
environement where what is not mentioned is assumed non-controversial, while 
thre alst two make these unmentioneds matters of point. The {xukau} is 
allowable because -- in this context -- it is relevantly connected to the 
first.

> The difference becomes more clear by considering what happens with
> {dunli}:
> 
> ti ta dunli le ka ce'u barda
> This equals that in that they are big.
> 
> ti ta dunli le ka xukau ce'u barda
> This equals that in whether or not they are big.
> 
> ti ta dunli le ka ce'u barda sela'u makau
> This equals that in how big they are.
> 
> Similarly, for {frica} we have:
> 
> ti ta frica le ka ce'u barda
> This differs from that in that they are big.
> 
> ti ta frica le ka xukau ce'u barda
> This differs from that in whether or not they are big.
> 
> ti ta frica le ka ce'u barda sela'u makau
> This differs from that in how big they are.
> 
> Of course "this differs from that in that they are big" does not
> make a lot of sense, if they are both big then that's not a difference,
> .

But I do not take the third place of {dunli} or {frica} as asserting 
anything, as you do with {le ka ce'u barda} , but rather as describing the 
area where the sameness/difference lies, as you do with the other two. I 
would say not "in that they are big" but "in bigness" or "in the property of 
being big." Then there is a uniform interpretation of that place and no 
semantic dissonance in the {frica} case (in the {dunli} case as well, since 
it would be true if neither was big).  

<><>There is also the ever popular "in how big they are"
> >{le du'u [I think, maybe {nu}] makau ni ce'u barda}.  I know you don't 
>like
> >this {ni}, but I don't understand any other one, and it fits nicely here 
>as
> >does "in size" (le ni ce'u barda}.
>
>Each would be acceptable to me, but not both. They correspond
>to the two most common meanings {ni} has.>
>
>Since I think they are equivalent and both derived from {le ni la djumbos
>barda na du le ni la tamtum barda}, I don't even understand what your "two
>meanings" mean.

ni1 broda = jai sela'u broda
ni2 broda = ka broda sela'u makau

They are as different as {le broda} and {le du'u makau broda},
same difference.>
Well, it is certainly NOT the same difference as between {le broda} and {le 
du'u makau broda}, since one of these is a thing and the other is a claim, 
while one of the {ni} a property of a quantity and the other a property of 
claims (or a set of claims). What And made me realize yesterday was that I 
have been skimming your point too quickly, focusing on the fiddling with the 
bridi -- whether the quantity was just attached by a BAI or shifted to the 
first place in a complex compounding. I should have noticed the accompanying 
shift of the abstractor, from {ka} to {jai} (and thought abit more about what 
the BAI -- {sela'u} -- modified). Part of the problem is an old one in the 
fuzzy business, mixing truth-values with membership values (I used to do it 
until Belknap corrected me enough times). You claim that {ni} has had that  
confusion. I don't think I have ever used it in the truth-value way and 
can't find any clear cases of anyone else doing so (but, by the nature of the 
problem, clear cases are hard to find). You did not help clarify things by 
leaving the {sela'u} in the truth-value case, making it look like another 
membership-value case -- to one who was only attending carefully to the 
bridi. To be sure, the two factors can go together: that such-and-such is 
the membership value is a claim which also has a truth value, but the two are 
separable (as the fact that they can be confused shows) and one step at a 
time seems the best approach. Anyhow, I think I now see your point. I have 
(I think) been using {ni} consistently in your {n12} sense (the other is 
{jai}) -- or almost.  
I think that I have taken {ni ko'e broda} as a property of a quantity, not as 
an indirect question property. So, {le ni ko'e broda} evaluates to a number, 
not a property. I have some difficulty figuring out what the proeprty 
involved here is, since there is neither a {ce'u} nor a first term in the one 
give, but I assume this is meant to be a case of elided first term, so it is 
the property of a thing which broda to whatever extent {makau} turns out to 
be.
All of this looks like a good case for standardizing all this stuff, which 
seems to ahve gotten too diverse too quickly. With the result that what 
looks to be the same claim is totally different in the two readings -- indeed 
the cross readings make no sense.

<You can go from one to the other systematically, but you can't use
one where the other makes sense. One is a proposition-type object,
the other is not.>

It turns out that I am not, but a third notion of {ni} ("plain old {ni}," I 
would say) that resembles each of your partially -- it is a quantity, like 
{ni1} and attaches to the connection between sumti and selbri, like {ni2}.  

<I don't object to {le ni2 ce'u broda}, nor to
{le du'u makau ni1 ce'u broda}. In the latter case, ce'u belongs
to {du'u}, not to {ni1}. It would be more clear perhaps to say
{le ka makau ni1 ce'u broda}.>

No, in the second case (and always) {ce'u} belongs to {ni}, not {du'u} -- it 
is minimal scope. So, saying {ka} in this case would confuse the issue.

<Using both meanings of {ni} is of course extremely confusing, so
I try to avoid it.>
Back atcha. Do try to stick to plain old {ni} and avoid introducing two 
totally new concepts into the picture, neither, as it turns out, justified by 
the data (outside your usage perhaps).