Subject: Re: noxemol ce'u

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 03:21:17 -0000

la pycyn cusku di'e

> li papibi ni mi clano kei lo se mitre

{lo se mitre} is a number so it can't really be a {seni}, a scale.

Other than that, {li papibi ni mi clani} is perfectly
acceptable to me... with the ni1 meaning of ni. You seem
to have assumed at some point that I disapprove of the
n1 meaning, but I don't. It is, as you keep pointing out,
the original meaning.

What I have been saying is that most usage (not mine, as
I avoid ni) ignores that original meaning and uses the ni2 
meaning, encouraged by the gi'uste suggestions. 

This situation is very similar to {jei}, with one definition
(truth value) and a different usage (indirect yes/no question).

{ni} similarly has one definition: "amount/quantity/(even extent 
maybe)", but also presents usage as an indirect question 
(ka sela'u makau). 

I am not saying and never said that ni2 is preferrable to ni1,
nor that I use it. All I've said is that it exists and is more
frequent in usage than ni1.

I know you are saying that ni1 is the true ni. I agree it is
the definitional one.

Now, assuming that is clear, our disagreement reduces to
whether or not you can use {le mamta be ce'u} (and thus
{le ni1 ce'u barda}) in places that would normally take {ka}.

Unfortunately, I don't have enough comand of technical linguistic
vocabulary to explain why that is so wrong. 

Would you say that {le mamta be ce'u cu mamta} is true?
Or is it meaningless?

> 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.

I would call {le mamta be ce'u} abuse of notation if it refers
to a function and not to a mother sort of critter.

> 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. 

My understanding is that {la djan} does not replace 
{le du'u makau klama}. {le du'u la djan klama} does.

"Answer" is ambiguous.

> Well, I would have said "their mothers" "the amounts" and so on, 
but, yes, 
> that is where we disagree. 

Right. At least I think we are now more clear on what the other
is saying.

> And, of course, my view is in the Refgram, yours 
> is not.

I'm almost certain that the Refgram does not even hint at
anything like {le mamta be ce'u} being used as a property.
{ce'u} outside of {ka} was never brought up until you did
during this discussion.

mu'o mi'e xorxes