Re: ka/ni kama

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

Lojbab:
 >>2a.                 mi nelci le ni la meris cu ninmu
 >>2b.                do mi zmadu le ni ce'u nelci le nu ri dansu
 >>2c.                 le pixra cu cenba le ni ce'u blanu
>
>2a does seem to be sumti raising, in that if you replaced "le ni ...
>by its numerical value, you would be saying that you are fond of a number.

Yes, if {ni} has the number meaning.

>Probably it is a sumti-raising from
>mi nelci le ka/ni le ni la meris cu ninmu cu zmadu leni lo'e ninmu cu
ninmu"

Why zmadu? Maybe mleca. It doesn't say that the degree to which
Mary is a woman is great or small.

It would be sumti raising from {mi nelci le nu makau du le ni
la meris cu ninmu}: "I like what is the amount of Mary being a woman."
(Although Lee says that you'd be saying that you like the dimensioned
amount itself. I respond to that in my reply to him.)

 >I do not see why 2b and 2c cannot be replaced by a number, provided that
one
>can figure out an appropriate scale.

Because {cenba li ci} doesn't mean anything. {lo se cenba} has
to be a property, not a number.

 >>But the problem is that very often {ni} is used in the indirect question
>>mode without tu'a marking, even in refgram examples.
>
>I think you are uncomfortable with the idea of something having a
quantitative
>measurement when no scale for such quantification has been defined.

Not at all. If you look at my examples, none of them had an explicit
scale defined. That's why I made the point that if {ni} were to have
the number meaning, it would be a number in the Lojban sense, i.e.
any PA, not just ordinary numbers. I couldn't think of any example
where ni would give an ordinary number. It's always things like
{li piso'i} = "a lot", {li rau} = "enough", etc.


>>I don't think it applies to ka, since ka abstractions are never
>>full bridi, they can't claim anything by themselves. For example:
>
>"never"???
>
>le ka lemi speni cu fetsi cu se flalu  fi ti

I don't understand why ka instead of nu there. You're talking
of a state, not of a property.

>so I can say
>ka lemi speni cu fetsi
>just as much as I can
>lemi speni cu fetsi

I don't understand what you mean by the first.

>Both claim relationships - different ones.  The first claims that the
second
>relationship can be chacracterized.

What do you mean? Are there relationships that can't be characterized?
I really have no idea what you mean by that.

 >Maybe that solves the previous problem.  Surely
>na ka lemi speni cu nakni
>just as
>lemi speni cu na nakni

If you change ka to nu I may agree. With ka I don't understand it.

>>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".
>
>No, it will be a truth value other-than-1.  Most people assume "false"
>means "zero".

I never talked of numbers. If {jei} is a truth value, then {le jei <bridi>}
is either TRUE or FALSE, if you're working with binary logic (you
may prefer to call them "0" and "1", that's not relevant) or it may have
an intermediate value if you're working with fuzzy logic. In any case,
that's in the case that {jei} gives a truth value. In most usage {jei}
is not a truth value, but rather an indirect question. It is often used
to mean {du'u xukau}.


>>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}.
>
>I don't know why the ka is necessary.  Why not "makau poi bridi la'u ke'a"?

That would be sumti raising.

co'o mi'e xorxes