Re: ni, jei, perfectionism

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>{jei} is defined in the refgram both as a truth value, and as an
>indirect question involving truth values.

I claim that the refgrammar does not define the second.  I will agree that
Chap 11, 6.3) appears to contain an unmarked sumti-raising which would require
a tu'a on the x2 to be ideal.  I think that we will find that there are
other usages in the refgrammar that have hidden sumti-raising which makes them
less than perfect examples of the language in light of the given English
translation.  But the fact that an example is not entirely consistent with
the text describing the principle does not make the text definition incorrect.

I can accept that the refgrammar examples will have logical flaws, especially
with regard to their given English translations, while upholding the
refgrammar as a baseline standard.

(Resolving an apparent inconsistencey between the rst of the section and
6.3) merely requires that I analyze that the English transaltion given for
6.3) does indeed reflect a sumtiraising of an indirect question.  Neither
the translation nor the text discussion indicate that the indirect question
was supposed to be the meaning of the jei.

Hmm I wonder how that example would be taken if the usage had been
"le jeikau ..."

lojbab
----
lojbab                                                lojbab@access.digex.net
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                        703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: ftp.access.digex.net /pub/access/lojbab
    or see Lojban WWW Server: href="http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/";
    Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.