Re: tremau

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

 Lojbab:
>I must be obtuse, or simply befuddled by jai and kau which you
>use a lot and I am uncomfortable with.  But I have no idea what these
>two mean either in theory or usage, given that you are calling them
>definitional.  For one
>thing, the "definition" of la'u, which in turn invokes the x1 of klani
which
>among other things would be a ni abstraction.

Sorry about that. I was using the old gi'uste, which had the x1 and x2
of klani reversed. What I meant to use is {sela'u}, the number.

By one definition, {le ni broda} is a number, something like a {li PA}.
That would be: {le jai sela'u broda}.

By the other definition it is an abstraction about a number, a {tu'a li PA}.
That one is: {le ka broda sela'u makau}.

 >So what is the difference, and can you come up with an example where
>the value of ni broda is different for these two definitions (or maybe
>you have and I don't understand).

Well, the x3 of zmadu can't take a number, so any example that
uses ni there would correspond to the second definition.

> Wait.  We have one more word: "quantifier" as in that expressed with "li"
> which I would define as a mathematical representation of a number.  But I
> am not sure how that fits.  Klani then relates a quantity and the
quantifier
> (or *a* quantifier) that represents it.  The x3 of zmadu and the x
> 2 of cenba
> can take a quantity, but cannot take a quantifier (at least in normal us
> age).

All right, then you do see what I mean. You're saying that ni has the
abstract meaning, not the unraised quantifier meaning.

 >>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.
>
>I'm not sure which is 1-B - i'm using the real book %^)  Presuming that
this
>is the "amount of blue" subtraction example, it is confusing because of
>the use of mo'e, which is anything but clearly defined -

It sounds like a cop out, but I guess since nobody knows how mo'e works
 you can get away with it. Then we all agree that something like:

            *le ni la djan cu ricfu cu du li piso'i

is nonsense? (The correct way to express what would be meant by
that is {la djan cu ricfu sela'u li piso'i}.)

 co'o mi'e xorxes