[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xod:
#> 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
OK.
le ni ce'u nenri le dakli
the amount of things in the bag
= da poi mo'e ke'a de nenri le dakli
Would {le ni ce'u prami ce'u} mean "the amount of lover--beloved
pairings"? That would be much harder to say in some other way.
#> > > 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!
Okay. I find that unsatisfactory. I'm happy to see (b) as a subtype of (a), but
I know from experience that I often want to say (b) and not (a) -- I often want
to say "whether" rather than "extent to which".
--And.