[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sun, 3 Nov 2002, And Rosta wrote:
> xod:
> > 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]
>
> Yes. I am in favour of the latter.
{ni + ce'u} solves a problem (counting) that is hard to do any other way;
{ni - ce'u} is conceptually redundant with jei, differing only in the
number, a number (-00, 00) which in most cases can be mapped onto [0, 1]
without damage.
--
"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