[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
I never got round to replying to this...
xod:
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, And Rosta wrote:
>
> > 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}.
>
> ok.
>
> > #> 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?
>
>
> If you take that a step further, you'll see the logical error.
>
> If ni uses ce'u, then it can't express "the degree to which", because
> that's an abstraction of a filled bridi. If ni doesn't need ce'u, then it
> makes sense, but loses its symmetry with ka, and becomes completely
> identical to jei.
Okay. As I see it, ni doesn't have ce'u, it has no symmetry with ka,
and the reason I had asked you to expand your ideas is that I'm
interested to see how feasible it is to maintain that it becomes
identical to jei.
> ni ko'a xunre: the degree to which A is red
> ni ce'u xunre: the degree to which anything is red <-- makes no sense
>
> If ni and jei are redundant, ni should be the one to go: it is roundly
> abused, it seems to expect a ce'u but shouldn't have one, and its values
> are not defined to be in [0, 1] like jei is, and it doesn't have the usage
> history of working like jei.
I have always used and understood ni in a way parallel to jei. Admittedly
I am more than averagely free from semantic solecisms (my errors are
largely syntactic).
But the difference between ni & jei is analogous to (tho not synonymous
with) that between "the extent to which" and "whether". That's a
useful distinction in English, though I can see how it might also be
useful to be able to conflate them.
--And.