Subject: Re: [lojban] noxemol ce'u

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 09:27:25 EDT

In a message dated 9/18/2001 10:32:51 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> Almost every use is ni2. For example, example 5.5 in pg 261:
> {le pixra cu cenba le ni ce'u blanu} = {le pixra cu cenba le
> ka ce'u blanu sela'u makau}. The x2 of cenba has to be a property,
> not a number. Same for the many gismu places for which the gi'uste
> proposes ka/ni. They require a property, not a number.
> 

Ahah! It must be a property because it goes in the {cenba3} which takes a 
property. And we know it takes a property because the gismu list says it 
does. And the cmavo list makes a mistake in saying that {ni} is an amount, 
not a property. By the same reasoning, {ni} must be an amount because the 
cmavo list says it is and so the gismu list makes a mistake in saying that 
{cenba3} must be a property. Personally, I tend to trust the cmavo list above 
the gismu list, but that is just a personal preference -- for which I have 
reasons, of course, but no definite proof. And there are cases where I would 
go the other way. I suppose you have cases where you would go my way, but 
this is not one of them. Still, the gismu list has proven particularly 
unreliable about what has to go in various places: {ka} in particular has 
often meant only "abstract" rather than specifically {ka}, because few other 
abstractions had been used much when Refgram was written.

<I would say:

  mi mitre li papibi le ni ce'u clani
= mi mitre li papibi le ka ce'u clani sela'u makau

  la tamtum cu mutce le ni ce'u barda
= la tamtum cu mutce le ka ce'u barda sela'u makau

How do you do it?>

Your firsts look fine, albeit roundabout; your seconds are also fine but even 
more roundabout.
li papibi ni mi clano kei lo se mitre
li so'e ni la djumbos barda [maybe {li mo'e le ka mutce} to be fancy about 
it]

<The problem is when you try to force functions in places that
take properties.>
Hey, functions and properties are all the same sorts of critters. And, as I 
have said, it seems to me that the list uses {ka} in just this ambiguus way.

<>(It occurs to me that at some point you said that the
>answers to questions where what replaced the q-kau, not what replaced the
>whole question.

Arrgggggghhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I argued for a month with xod
that they are not. I am obviously failing to convey to you the
different meanings of {jai sela'u broda} and {ka broda sela'u makau}.
I can't put it more clear than that, one is a number, the other a
property.>
Sorry if I have gotten you wrong on this. I take your ambiguous cry as 
meaning that you do NOT hold that answers are what replace the q-kau. But 
you are the one who objected to one formulation of the set-of -answers theory 
of questions by saying that it had to be wrong bcause it was not { George, 
Sam,....}, which looked like that position.

<Ok, according to you, their mother is the difference, to me who
their mother is is the difference. To you, the amount is the
difference, to me, what the amount is is the difference. It seems
I can't convince you that what you're doing is using a relative
clause where you should use an indirect question, something that
English certainly allows, but Lojban, the way I understand it,
does not. And you certainly won't convince me that a function with
ce'u will do instead of a property with ce'u and makau, so I think
this is how far we will get with this.>

Well, I would have said "their mothers" "the amounts" and so on, but, yes, 
that is where we disagree. And, of course, my view is in the Refgram, yours 
is not. But, now that I understand what your point is (giving the whole 
argument as clarly as you finally have would have saved a lot of trouble.  
Maybe, or maybe it just took me a long time to put it together), I see that 
we will end up disagreeing as long as we are separated by this basic 
difference in what to follow as a guide. Since my view encompasses yours and 
makes for a nice general theory, I think I'll stick with it.