Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 11:50:06 EDT

In a message dated 9/19/2001 10:24:12 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

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

Yeah, I've been wondering about the best way to specify the scale "in metres" 
(or any other, for that matter). this was just a fill-in.

<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. >

I didn't assume you disapproved of {ni1}, I preceived that you thought there 
was a {ni2} and kept trying to get you to give me an example of it. Still 
waiting.
As it turns out, of course, the gi'uste does not sugggest any alternate {ni}.

<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).>

Yes, similar in that one exists and the otehr does not? Where is the 
indirect question usage of {jei}. It does turn out that {jei} and a certain 
indirect question (actually several) are closely related in some contexts, 
but that hardly means that {jei} is an indirect question: it functions in 
those contexts as itself, just as {ni} does in its.

<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.>

Then an example should be easy to find. Where is a case of {ni} that is not 
{ni1} but an indirect question in disguise? I suspect that this is just the 
result of your not allowing that {ni} can occur in some places where it does 
in fact occur and thus reading it as something else. 

<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}.>

I guess that is the problem, more or less. I think you don't much {le mamta 
be ce'u} anywhere, but we'll get back to that. And, of course, you still 
believe that there are two uses of {ni} and {jei} that are substantially 
different.

<Would you say that {le mamta be ce'u cu mamta} is true?
Or is it meaningless?>
It is false, except in the wonderfully metaphorical sense that a function is 
the mother of its values out of the fatherhood of its arguments. I suppose 
you could say it is meaningless in the same sense that {levi rokci cu mamta} 
is meaningless -- maybe more so -- the wrong kind of thing is put in the 
first place.

<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.>

I know. But {ce'u} just does that sort of thing, changing perfectly good 
expressions into functions, whose values flow back to the right sorts of 
things.

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

"Answer" is ambiguous.>

Not as defined. And "replace" is not quite right for all contexts, since 
sometimes the replacement would amke no sense, but the basic idea is the one 
wanted.

<> 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.>

This was about the {ni} split, not about {le mamta be ce'u}. And you are 
quite right: there is nothing explicit about this in the Refgram. It does 
follow from 
the claim that {ce'u} is a lambda variable, though. 
The point now is, we have this perfectly legitimate sumti and a theory about 
what it should mean drawn from logic. Should we use this material or not. 
We have to explain the construction somehow. There may be other theories 
about what it means, but none have surfaced yet and they will probably not 
have the good backing of this one nor fit so well into the general theory of 
how {ce'u} and {makau} work.