[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xod:
[...]
#> > and it's based on a deprecated notion of ka.
#>
#> I don't see that this is correct or relevant.
#
#Well, which is it? Do you not understand, or not agree, or agree but don't
#care?
I don't see that it is correct, and I don't see that (even if it is correct) it is relevant.
We all agree that ka was messed up but that we sorted it out last year.
Whether or not messed-up ka had something to do with the inception of
ni, {ni} has the useful meaning "the extent/degree to which". But you
are also arguing that that meaning can fruitfully be collapsed with that
of {jei}, and that seems to me an interesting argument.
#> > Up the present, my discussion with pc on this had two outcomes: one was
#> > the question of whether jei ko'a xunre is actually an analog of the
#> > redness of ko'a. It's an interesting question but I don't see why a
#> > language that actually intended to be used would offer any other
#> > interpretation of jei. In any case it's an interpretive convention, and
#> > that's how I use it, and I don't know of any contrary usage.
#>
#> I agree that the ni/jei distinction can be collapsed, but each degree
#> of ni/jei must also be associated with a property indicating whether
#> it counts as a true-making degree or a false-making degree. In other
#> (& hopefully clearer) words, the possible values of ni/jei can be
#> grouped into those yielding True, those yielding False and those
#> yielding Sorta.
#
#What do you mean? jei, at least, really is limited to [0, 1]. ni is
#unlimited, which makes it hard (but not impossible!!) to represent truths.
If each possible value of ni corresponds to a value of jei in a determinate
way, and if there is some way to describe values of ni in terms of the
value of jei that they correspond to, then we can do without jei.
Instead of {li pa jei broda}, say {lo value-corresponding-to-True cu ni
broda}.
#> But as far as I can see there's nothing ugly about ni per se. Rather,
#> just as the ka/du'u distinction does not exist, so it can be argued
#> that the ni/jei distinction can be dispensed with. We just end up
#> with two redundant cmavo.
#
#At least ka means a special case of du'u; one with su'o zo ce'u. ni
#doesn't even offer us that much. And it's interpreted in all crazy ways:
#if I were to describe real usage, I'd have to admit it's usually used to
#count xo ko'a!
I'll readily believe the usage is bad. But do you not agree that {ni}
means "the extent/degree to which", and that's a relatively useful
notion?
--And.