From jjllambias@hotmail.com Tue Sep 18 16:59:42 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 18 Sep 2001 23:59:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 25779 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2001 23:59:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Sep 2001 23:59:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.214) by mta2 with SMTP; 18 Sep 2001 23:59:42 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 18 Sep 2001 16:59:42 -0700 Received: from 200.69.11.27 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 18 Sep 2001 23:59:41 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.27] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] noxemol ce'u Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 23:59:41 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Sep 2001 23:59:42.0097 (UTC) FILETIME=[FBC2B810:01C1409D] From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e > > ti ta dunli le ka ce'u barda > > This equals that in that they are big. > > > > ti ta frica le ka ce'u barda > > This differs from that in that they are big. > >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). Well, to me {ti ta dunli le ka ce'u barda} requires that ti and ta be barda (but it does not require that they be of the same size!) >ni1 broda = jai sela'u broda >ni2 broda = ka broda sela'u makau [...] >Anyhow, I think I now see your point. I don't think you do, at least not in a way I can understand. I don't think my point has anything to do with truth values in the case of {ni}. >I have >(I think) been using {ni} consistently in your {n12} sense (the other is >{jai}) -- or almost. I think almost everyone uses it consistently in the {ni2} sense. (The property-type thingy sense, not the number sense.) >So, {le ni ko'e broda} evaluates to a number, >not a property. That's {ni1}. {le jai sela'u broda be fai ko'e} also evaluates to a number. That's what I mean by {le ni1 ko'e broda}. >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. No, as far as I can see there is no property whatsoever in {ni1}. >{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. Sorry, I meant: {le du'u ce'u goi ko'a zo'u makau ni1 ko'a broda}. That's what would fit as x3 of frica. >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). I'm finding this discussion with you extremely frustrating. Could you please spell out what is plain old {ni} for you? You seem to go from one to the other of my ni1 and ni2 and settle with none. ni1 ko'a broda = jai sela'u broda be fai ko'a ni2 ce'u broda = ka ce'u broda sela'u makau ni3 = ? If ni is a number, it is ni1. If it's a property-type thing, it's ni2. If it is neither, what is it? mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp