Re: ka/ni kama

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

cu'u la kris
>Setting jei aside for a minute, could you give an example of the
>two uses of "ni" and how they conflict?  I don't understand
>the distinction.

1- {ni} as a number (in the Lojban sense, i.e. a PA).

1a.            le ni la djan cu ricfu cu du li piso'i
                  The degree to which John is rich is much.

1b.            le ni le vi jubme cu kurfa cu zmadu le ni jy cukla
                 The amount that this table is square is greater than
                  the amount that it is round.

An example from the refgram:

1c.           li pa vu'u mo'e  le ni le pixra cu blanu
                 the-number 1 minus the-operand  the amount-of (the picture
being-blue)
                1 - B, where B = blueness of the picture.

[I don't think that something that is not blue can have an amount of being
blue
greater than zero, but that's a different matter. To say what the refgram
means
by that example I would use {le ni lo blanu cu pagbu le pixra} "the amount
of something blue being a component of the picture".]

Or something to say to your lover:

1d.            mi kancu le'i tarci le ni mi do prami
                  I count the number of stars to be the amount that I love
you.

In all of those examples, {le ni ...} stands for a number, it could be
replaced by a {li PA} and the sentence still makes sense.

2- {ni} as an indirect question.

2a.                 mi nelci le ni la meris cu ninmu
                       I like to what extent Mary is a woman.

2b.                do mi zmadu le ni ce'u nelci le nu ri dansu
                      You exceed me in the amount we like to dance.

An example from the refgram:

2c.                 le pixra cu cenba le ni ce'u blanu
                       the picture varies in-the amount-of (X is blue)
                      The picture varies in how blue it is.

In these cases, we can't replace {le ni...} with a number. Suppose
that {le ni la meris cu ninmu cu du li piso'i} "the extent to which Mary
is a woman is a lot", then 2a. would be saying {mi nelci li piso'i},
which, to me, is nonsense, and it is certainly not what is meant.

If {le ni ...} is indeed a number, as the definition and the examples (1)
indicate, then the examples (2) would be cases of sumti raising. They
should be replaced by {tu'a le ni...}, where it would stand for the indirect
question {le nu makau du le ni...}, i.e. "what is the amount of...".
But the problem is that very often {ni} is used in the indirect question
mode without tu'a marking, even in refgram examples.

Something very similar happens with {jei}.

 >I believe people sometimes see ghosts, but I don't believe ghosts really
>exist.  So I would say {de li'i da pruxi} but {da na pruxi}.  I would like
>to be able to say something can have an extent of being long, without
>being long, in a perfectly parallel construction: {de ni da clani} but {da
>na clani}.

I don't agree they are parallel cases. If something is not long by a
given standard, why would the amount of it being long by that standard
be different from zero. If the amount of it being long is very small, but
greater than zero, then the thing _is_ long, even if only a little bit long
by that standard. If it is short by that standard then it can't also be
long.


>The existence of the abstraction equals the truth value of the
>thing abstracted only in the special cases of nu, ka, and jei.

I don't think it applies to ka, since ka abstractions are never
full bridi, they can't claim anything by themselves. For example:

        le jubme cu claxu le ka ce'u cukla
        The table lacks the property of being round.

There is no claim of anything being round there.

In the case of nu, I'm not sure whether there is agreement that
talking of {le nu broda} makes the implicit claim that it happens.
I don't think I have a problem with things like:

         mi pacna le nu do bazi klama
         I hope that you come soon.

where I'm not claiming that you will come soon.

As for {jei}, assuming it is the truth value and not the indirect
question, then it obviously doesn't claim its bridi. If the bridi is
false, then {le jei <bridi>} will exist and be the truth value "FALSE".

>It doesn't
>relate at all with si'o, su'o, or li'i, so the "rule" that ni is bending
>when it assigns values to non-broda is not really a rule of abstractors at
>all, but an incorrect generalization based on the behavior of ka.

I don't claim any such rule for abstractors. If ni has the number
meaning it can't really be compared with ka. If it has the indirect
question meaning then yes, sometimes it acts just like a ka. In
those cases {le ni <bridi>} is very similar to {le ka <bridi> la'u
makau}.

co'o mi'e xorxes