Re: [engelang] Xorban ni'u(kV)

Consider first the class of binary predicates bbbake such that
whenever "la ccca le ddde bbbake" is true then "la ccca le je ccce
ddde bbbake" is also true. Let's call these predicates "(binary)
quantifiers".

Then notice that we can always replace "la ccca" by "la je ccca nu
ddda"  and "le je ccce ddde" by "le je ccce ni ddde" so that the x1
and x2 of a quantifier can always be filled by two almost identical
expressions, differening only in ni/nu.

Now let's define the unary version of a quantifier such that it gives

Where is the quantifier here?  Is ni'u one?

the same meaning as the binary version when applied to an _expression_
with "ni'u" standing for the "ni/nu" of the x2 and x1 of the binary
version. So for example, if "mstake" means "most A are E", we can
have:

la prna le li ckli nlceki mstake
A/person(A): E/( I/chocolate(I):like(E,I) ): most(A,E)
Most people like chocolate.

= la je prna nu li ckli nlcaki le je prne ni li ckli nlceki mstake
= la je prna ni'u li ckli nlcaki msta
Peeople who DO like chocolate are most (people).

So instead of  "la prna le li ckli nlceki mstake" we can say "la je
prna ni'u li ckli nlcaki msta", which uses one fewer variable, but
also we can say "la je frmra je se xsle pnsake ni'u drxake msta",
"farmers who own some donkey and DO beat it are most (of the farmers
who own some donkey whether they beat it or not)", which doesn't have
a "mstake" form without repetition.

So this is short for  la je frma je se xsle pnsake ni'u drkake li je frmi so xslo pnsiko ni drxiko mstaki, which is not of the form la ccca ni'u ddda le ccce ni ddde fffake because the break is across the quantifier boundary.  Unless this is really just about matching phonological strings, without reference to content (which gets you into other troubles, I would imagine).  Otherwise we are combining a component and a half  with a half a component while claiming to combine two components.

Since in principle there could be more than one quantifier "ni'u"
could be tied to, we can say "ni'uka" instead of "ni'u" to make sure
it is tied to "msta".

Unary quantifiers are not the only kind of predicates that can make
use of a ni/nu comparison. Another example we considered is prfrake "A
prefers E" perhaps reduced from something like prfrakeki "A prefers E
from among I":

lo je ckfa ni'u ldra prfra'aka
"I prefer my coffee with milk."
(From the choices of coffee whether with milk or not with milk, I
prefer coffee WITH milk.)

I think more generally "ni'u" can be thought of as a focus marker, for
example tied to something like an implicit "I make assertion x rather
than more general assertion y", where x is the one with ni and y the
one with nu.

I don't think I will ever understand this, since I don't see the point of the complication.  Why not just say that I prefer coffee with milk or most people like chocolate or whatever it is that the donkey sentence is trying to say (since that is really very unclear: beats all his donkeys, beats some and not others, doesn't beat any?)  Or why not contrast with the negative case rather than the general?