Re: Dvorak (& Lojban)

[JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

Chris:
 >In English, and I presume most or maybe all other natlangs, we have this
>regular way of transforming a binary statement about a quality into a
>quantitative one.  "Whether he is tall" -> "How tall he is"  "Whether he
>is smart" -> "how smart he is"  "Whether he is inept" -> "how inept he
>is".  The latter can interpreted quantitatively when it makes sense (as
>with tallness), or by comparison or example when numbers are too hard to
>assign (as with ineptitude).

 Hmmm.... Let's see:

- Is he tall?
-No.
-No? How tall is he?
- 1m
-Ah, you're right, he's not tall then.

- Is he inept?
-No.
-No? How inept is he?
-I told you he is not inept, why do you ask how inept he is?

If you say that someone is not tall, it still makes sense to ask
how tall he is. Why? Because the sense of tall in "how tall"
is different. In Lojban you would say:

- xu ko'a clani
-i na go'i
-i ko'a mitre ma
-i li pa

You would not use {clani} to ask "how tall".

>This seems sensible to me, it could be a
>useful interpretation of the ka/ni distinction.  "ka" = whether, "ni" =
>how/to what degree.

Yes, that's one of the ways "ni" is used. Just as with {jei}, {ni}
has two meanings: its official definition meaning, and its usage
meaning. According to their definition, {jei} is a truth value
and {ni} is an amount. According to usage, they are indirect
questions, {jei} is "whether" and {ni} is "how much/to what degree".
Because of this confusion I prefer to avoid them, and use
{xukau} for "whether" and "la'u makau" for "to what degree".

But in any case, this is beside the question about clani. I don't
think that this one works either:

      ti ta kilto le ka clani la'u makau
      This is a thousand times that in the extent to which they are clani

My problem here is not with the double meaning of ni. My point is
that clani is not a measure word, and to use kilto with it makes as
much or as little sense as using it with melbi, for example.

>My computer screen can appear "a little too blue" without me actually
>classifying any of the colors on it as "blue".  This parallels your
>example and is exactly how the reference grammar explains the difference
>between ka blanu and ni blanu.  Is it wrong to use ni blanu to refer to
>intensity of blue light in a color mix, when the mix itself isn't blue?

I don't know. What do you mean, something like:

                ta na blanu
                i le ni ta blanu cu du li cireze

                That is not blue.
                The amount of that being blue is 327.

Note that this would be the other meaning of ni, not the indirect question
one. But that still sounds wrong to me. I would say something like

                    ta mixre lo blanu ce lo xunre ce lo crino
                    That is a mix of blue, red and green.

                    i li cireze cu klani le blanu
                    327 is the quantity of the blue component.

                    i ta na blanu i lu'a le se mixre be ri cu blanu
                    That is not blue. One of its components is blue.

> I can't think of a better use for "ni", and I can't think of any
>contradiction or inelegancy that would come from using it this way.

The biggest problem I see with "ni" is that it is used for two
different things, amounts and indirect questions about amounts.
Once one of the two meanings has been chosen, I still don't
think that something that is not broda can have some "ni broda".

co'o mi'e xorxes