[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, And Rosta wrote:
> xod:
> > 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
>
> It's a pain hunting through the online archives (-- very hard to find
> stuff), & I don't archive everything myself. From memory, his ex was
> something like {le ni la djan cilre ce'u} = "the amount of things
> read by John". Would this be an example of what you have in mind?
Yes; which I phrase as "the number of sumti valid for that tergi'u".
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jboske/message/273
> > > 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?
>
> You can take that complaint as given.
>
> My preferences:
>
> ka + ce'u ... instead of: du'u + ce'u
> du'au + ce'u ... instead of: du'u + makau
Fine by me. Consistent!
>
> > > 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]"
>
> I seek:
>
> (a) a way to do "the extent to which", ranging from infinitely much to
> infinitely not-at-all
>
> (b) a way to do "whether", ranging from completely true to completely
> false.
>
> -- which seems to correspond to the choice you offer me. Now, according
> to you, how would I express (a) and (b) in Lojban?
jei is perfect for either one. I don't choose to interpret those two
sentences as having different meaning!
--
"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