[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xod:
> > > 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
I know I'm asking you to repeat things that have been said before, but
can you give examples of ni + ce'u that are hard to say any other way?
I'd like to check that this is true. If it is, we should document it
on the wiki.
I'm a bit uncomfortable, though with ni + ce'u and du'u + ce'u. I've
taken to using ka when I want a ce'u. The reason is that one tends
to gardenpath: you read it as a straight ni or du'u and then when you
hit the ce'u you have to backtrack and revise your interpretation of
what sort of abstraction is involved.
Regarding the conceptual redundancy, I don't find "extent to which"
and "whether" to be redundant. Sometimes it is useful to be able to
restrict "extent to which" to Yes or No (= "whether"). This distinction
needn't be made be ni vs jei, but it's not redundant (and I don't know
how else to make it).
--And.