[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jordan: > On Sat, Dec 21, 2002 at 08:34:10PM -0000, And Rosta wrote: > > The point wasn't to define ni in terms of jei or vice versa but > > simply to disambiguate the two incompatible senses of ni -- viz > > "to what extent" and "the extent to which" > > "ni" means the "extent to which". The former probably has someting > to do with makau I think most of us now agree on this. But because it has been used to mean "to what extent", just as jei has been used to mean "whether", it will need to be ruled on by BF. > [...] > > > "ni" usually has nothing to do with truth, imho. It can, though, > > > by using x2. Truth is better represented by "jei" to avoid having > > > to specify the x2 > > > > You're right, but I can't think of any scale to measure bridi by, > > other than the scale of how much the world would have to change > > for their truth value to switch. In a sense, then, I see x2 of ni > > as unnecessary, since I can think of only one plausible value for > > zo'e (as x2 of ni) > > Huh. There's almost as many possible values for x2 as there are > bridi > > leni mi clani probably has some kind of "lesi'o clani ma'i tu'a mi" > or some such thing, etc > > Note btw, that because of x2 of ni, we can even use ni to do "leni > gerku" for "the number of dogs" I still can't see "Three is the extent to which there is a dog" making sense. I can make sense of measuring the extent to which there is a dog by counting how many dogs there are, but the extent still seems to me to be the amount that the world has to change to switch the truth value. What I am saying is that I can see only one scale that makes sense of ni, but I can see many different ways of calibrating it. If x2 does the calibration, then I am not bemused. --And.