[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, And Rosta wrote: > > 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. It seems we're down to two uses of ni: ni + ce'u, used for counting the valid sumti in a tergi'u, and ni without any ce'u, which is like jei, but not restricted to [0, 1]. > > 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. Yes, indeed. The conflation is the essential insight of fuzzy logic. -- "In the Soviet Union, government controls industry. In the United States, industry controls government. That is the principal structural difference between the two great oligarchies of our time." -- Edward Abbey