From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Sep 19 20:21:21 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 20 Sep 2001 03:21:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 706 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2001 03:21:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 20 Sep 2001 03:21:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n18.groups.yahoo.com) (10.1.1.37) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Sep 2001 03:21:21 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: jjllambias@hotmail.com Received: from [10.1.2.109] by mr.egroups.com with NNFMP; 20 Sep 2001 03:21:20 -0000 Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 03:21:17 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: noxemol ce'u Message-ID: <9obnbe+da2v@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <145.1cee09d.28d9f73d@aol.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2449 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 200.41.247.44 From: jjllambias@hotmail.com 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