ni, jei, perfectionism

[Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>]

And summarizes and Lojbab replies:
>>{jei} (i)  "is truth value of p" [some value on the T--F scale]
>>      (ii) "whether p is the case"
>
>I don't see the difference.  Any way of communicating ii is some =
mapping of
>(i)

Yes, but the "mapping" is sumti raising .ii zo'o

>>{ni}  (i)  "is the amount to which p is the case" (?) [some kind
>>              of quasi numerical thing]
>>      (ii) "how much p is the case"
>>
>>In each case, (i) is a kind of value or numerical thingy, and
>>(ii) is an indirect question.
>
>I thought indirect qyestions were marked by kau?

Exactly, but the ref grammar in one or two examples uses {ni} without =
{kau} to translate some indirect questions -- that would be better with =
{le ka sela'u ma kau ...}

>>There was a long thread on this a month or two ago, which I did
>>not participate in.
>
>And which like all  the rest petered out after much volume with no =
resolution
>and obviously just as much confusion among at least as many people as =
>when we
>started.  Yet I have yet to see a Lojban statement using jei that I did =
not
>understand.

There are a whole list of distinctions that lojban makes that English =
doesn't, that we'll have to be careful to make even though we know bad =
usage will be perfectly understandable:

      .o vs .a=20
      sumti-raising
      ni'i vs ki'u vs ri'a vs mu'i vs janai (5 kinds of because)
      le/lo/lei/loi/...
      selsau/djuno
      mi'a/mi'o   (me and you or me and others)
      sumti order when ro, su'o, naku, etc. are involved

I think these things are important, and so I think the practical =
criterion for good lojban has got to be slightly stricter than just =
understandability.

Nonetheless I do generally agree with Lojbab that there is a certain =
level of detail beyond which perfectionism doesn't buy us much.  The =
dual meanings of {ni} are ugly, but it just isn't that bad, considering =
that in practice we have no hope of eliminating every single similar =
flaw.  It's worth pointing out and discussing, I think, but maybe it's =
sufficient to conclude that "we have a pair of homonyms here; Lojban =
isn't perfect".  Jorge may choose not to use the word(s) {ni}, but =
Lojbab will probably use them, with the reference grammar as =
justification, and so it's to J's advantage to at least agree to =
recognize both meanings when L uses them.

chris