Re: ka/ni kama

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

Lojbab:
>>>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.
>I think it should.

 So you say. But then you say:

 >>{lo se cenba} has to be a property, not a number.
>
>Not according to my gismu list - it is a ka or ni abstraction just as the
x3
>of zmadu/mleca is.

But the x3 of zmadu or the x2 of cenba can't take a number!!!
When the gismu list asks for ka/ni it is asking for the raised meaning
of ni. In most cases ni is used in its raised meaning. Very rarely,
as in the refgram's 1-B example, is it used as a number.

Unraised ni:    le ni broda = le jaila'u broda
Raised ni:        le ni broda = le ka broda la'u makau

The theoretical definition is given as if it were unraised, but the
gismu list asks for it where you would need its raised meaning.
The same thing happens with jei.

 >I don't know about "usage", but the refgrammar discussion of jei states
>that in practice it ranges from 0 to 1 for fuzzy logic.  It does not define
>what value one would use for "true" or "false", but the x1 of a jei
>abstraction must be a number in order to suipport the fuzzy logic
convention.
>jei was specifically invented to support fuzzy truth more than binary
truth.

Right, that's the theory. In practice, and even in the example
of the refgram, jei is used in raised modality. This is the example:

            mi ba jdice le jei  la djordj. cu zekri gasnu
            I [future] decide the truth-value of  (George being-a-(crime
doer)).
            I will decide whether George is a criminal.

If {jei} is a truth value, that is sumti raising from:

            mi ba jdice le du'u makau du le jei la djordj cu zekri gasnu
            I will decide what is the truth value of ...

Or, better yet:

            mi ba jdice le du'u xukau la djordj cu zekri gasnu


>>>> 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.
>
>sumti raising from what?  Where is the hidden abstraction in my phrasing?

Well, you didn't give a full sentence. Let's go to an example:

                ti ta zmadu le ni ce'u ricfu

I claim that that is using the raised modality of ni:

              ti ta zmadu le ka ce'u ricfu la'u makau
              This one is more than that one in to what extent they're rich.

You ask, why not this:

             ti ta zmadu makau poi ricfu la'u ke'a

That would be the first time I see kau used outside an abstractor.
If you said that, my immediate question would be:

             ti ta zmadu makau poi ma ricfu la'u ke'a
             This one is more than that one in the X which who is rich to
                   that extent????

What would you put in the x1 of ricfu?

 co'o mi'e xorxes