[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, And Rosta wrote:
> 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.
Go to the post I just directed pc to. It's in this thread, written by
John.
>
> 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.
Why don't you complain about du'u + makau then?
> 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).
Since jei is fuzzy, it does not give you the boolean you seek! You have a
choice between "the extent to which (-00, 00)" and "the extent to which
[0, 1]".
--
"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