[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [jboske] The ugly head of ni

In a message dated 11/5/2002 4:13:21 PM Central Standard Time, xod@hidden.email writes:
<<
Conceptually, most (-00, 00) scales that refer to things in reality that
people want to discuss can be mapped like I said. I trust you can come up
with some bizarre counterexamples, but if you come up with a few that
might arise in normal discussion, then it will fall outside the "many" or
"most" I refer to. We did the Kareem thing already and you've seen I have
no problem mapping the length of the known universe to "1".

>>
I don't see your point at all now.  You have just said that {ni} and {jei} are two different things and that {ni} can be mapped onto {jei}, both of which I agree with.  So why are wwe arguing except that you seem to turn around and say that {ni} is just {jei}.  which way do you want it?  (but you can't have the second choice. Sorry).
Oh.  Maybe the point is just that we don't ever need {ni}, that all its work is done by {jei}.  Well, at best this is true if {jei} always works on [0,1], which it does not generally.  But even if it did, "Kareem is 7'2" " is more immediately useful and allows for any number of inferences that "Kareem is .98 tall" does not -- at least not without the correlations involved, which get us back to having a separate {ni} again.