Re: ni, jei, perfectionism

[Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>]

Lojbab cu ciksi:
>mi djuno tu'a/fi lejei broda
>can be translated either
>I know (about) the truth value of broda
>or
>I know whether broda is true

>The latter could also be expressed other ways, but it is a colloquial
>traslation equvalent to the former, and the Lojban is the way I would
>prefer to translate the English.  thatit happens not to parallel the
>English indirect question style is irrelevant.

Agreed.  That isn't quite what I'm getting at. =20

If {li pa jei broda}, then {jei} is a number.  {lo lidjragnostic. djuno =
tu'a le jei la cevni cu zasti} *using a consistent definition, contrary =
to the refgram* would be generally true, because agnostics are familiar =
with 1 and 0.  It claims they know a number, not that they know it's the =
truth value of the claim.

As a parallel, consider that {mi nelci lo skami be lo do kerfu} =
veridicially claims that 1) I like a certain color, and that 2) that =
really is the color of what really is your hair.  It does not claim that =
I approve of your hair being that color.  For that you'd need an =
abstraction.  If {li pa jei broda} is true, then {jei} isn't really an =
abstraction.

HOWEVER, the fact that it is defined in this contradictory way doesn't =
keep me up at night tossing and turning.  I predict in the case of {jei} =
that usage, following the ref grammar, will never really be ambiguous =
because only the concrete or the abstract meaning of {jei} will make =
sense in any given context.  The example of the agnostic above is really =
strained and I can't think how anyone will need to say that, so it =
probably won't be reflected in real usage.

Chris