[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
| In a message dated 10/29/2002 6:14:49 PM Central Standard Time, a.rosta@hidden.email writes: << I'm not sure if you silently dropped this idea. I can make no sense of I suppose it is a function from sumti to numbers, the amount that [referent of sumti] is [whatever the selbri is]. << > le ni ce'u kusru la djim = the amount of cruelty to Jim ni da kusru la djim >> like the sum of x and 3 (and similarly for all the others) at best this gives a set of numbers which are possible amounts of cruelty to Jim for various people -- maybe a useful notion. << > le jei la djan. ce'u la djim. = the degree to which John is cruel to Jim (ce'u > kusru) Is the idea here that certain degrees correspond to True and certain degrees to False? >> They had better, since a truth value system without a value True is very odd indeed. << Is there a difference between amounts and degrees? Not that I can trust myself to apply. My opinion on ni: treat ni as a gradient jei: >> The what is {jei}, which is also apparently a gradient? The fact that you (nor I, come to that) often don't know how to use amount hardly makes it a useless or illegitimate concept. << djuno lo'edu'u ma kau jei la djim broda = "know whether djim is broda" = know djim is broda or know djim isn't broda >> Well, aside from the insanity of using {lo'e}, which has been essentially destroyed as a meaningful word by all the unskilled tinkering that has gone on over the last week or so, this looks about right. Maybe "I know how true it is that Jim is a broda" << djuno lo'edu'u ma kau ni la djim broda = "know to what extent djim is broda" >> With the same caveat about {lo'e} (what ever happened to the quite normal {le} or even {lo} or the almost sensible {tu'o}?), this looks exactly right. |