Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c02::230 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4001:c02::230;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <51649B5F.30206@gmx.de>
References: <CA+gZtgLZhkTEUB3Wk9hcZPJZnBzJzWdtZi4x7xd-tV5Cd6O8fQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<51646922.70406@gmx.de>
	<CA+gZtgKLnt9kSQ1XejsceL70T75nETJsXmMSYHZNsZrrhvZUQw@mail.gmail.com>
	<51648170.8070900@gmx.de>
	<CA+gZtgLvKASBY3cZYHr30zOHMPw_e6LjsNjtqzQK8h8U5msn2g@mail.gmail.com>
	<5164911D.1070709@gmx.de>
	<CA+gZtgKS7-R2x0nq+23mQZbDb6VwjYp8tdBzExKW0j54dJPRng@mail.gmail.com>
	<51649B5F.30206@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 00:52:32 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+gZtgLRNfH1sABAOVprdkFcO4TDeBHpyoMDr0p87C5p_tkzUA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Final state of cenba/zenba/etc.
From: Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013c64661e19a404d9fa7039
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

--089e013c64661e19a404d9fa7039
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 6:51 PM, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:

>
> Many people like to measure all sorts of things on (sometimes ad-hoc)
> scales. "She is a 10" when talking about attractiveness or "He dove a 9.5"
> for high diving at Olympia. There are many occasions where one would like
> to introduce a scale and a number.

Interesting examples. The first I would say is just bad, to be perfectly
honest; I know that doesn't feel like much of an answer, but there
*are*certain things that we shouldn't try to retain as they are. The
second one
is ultimately not ad hoc, and therefore should be expressed as such: {merli
lo nu sfubu kei li so pi mu zo'e ne .o bu}. Here the scale can be described
in detail, but we aren't describing it here, and it doesn't have its own
brivla. At any rate, such things aren't numbers associated to *bridi *anyway;
it's not "her attractiveness is 10", it's "she is a 10 on the
attractiveness scale". Similarly, it's not "his dive-quality was 9.5", it's
"his dive was a 9.5 on the Olympian scale for diving". The thing being
measured is not a bridi, it's still an object or a concrete event, and when
it's an event it's not the bridi of the event that is being measured,
either.

>
> But you do allow {ni} both with and without a {ce'u}, don't you? I find
> that odd. Why allow it for {ni} and not for {ka}? I think {ce'u}-less {ka}
> died out for a good reason, and so in my opinion there should only be one
> {ni}, either with or without {ce'u}. I prefer it without.

I'd be fine with a separate {ni}-without-{ce'u} cmavo analogous to {du'u}.
There are several things that {ni} seems to want to do, and that is one of
them. The vague+with-{ce'u} version seems to be the most common by far,
however. This is partly because the full version is in some sense not safe;
you can't compare arbitrary ni, even when the ni themselves both exist. For
example, {lo ni mi xendo cu zmadu lo ni lo mamta cu laldo} is garbled
nonsense even when both of those extents make sense separately. Having the
outer selbri do the reduction "for" you keeps you comparing apples to
apples.

mi'e la latro'a mu'o

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--089e013c64661e19a404d9fa7039
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 6:51 PM, selpa&#39;i <span dir=3D"l=
tr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:seladwa@gmx.de" target=3D"_blank">seladwa@gmx.de<=
/a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-lef=
t:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class=3D"im">
<br></div>
Many people like to measure all sorts of things on (sometimes ad-hoc) scale=
s. &quot;She is a 10&quot; when talking about attractiveness or &quot;He do=
ve a 9.5&quot; for high diving at Olympia. There are many occasions where o=
ne would like to introduce a scale and a number.</blockquote>
<div style>Interesting examples. The first I would say is just bad, to be p=
erfectly honest; I know that doesn&#39;t feel like much of an answer, but t=
here <i>are</i> certain things that we shouldn&#39;t try to retain as they =
are. The second one is ultimately not ad hoc, and therefore should be expre=
ssed as such: {merli lo nu sfubu kei li so pi mu zo&#39;e ne .o bu}. Here t=
he scale can be described in detail, but we aren&#39;t describing it here, =
and it doesn&#39;t have its own brivla. At any rate, such things aren&#39;t=
 numbers associated to <i>bridi </i>anyway; it&#39;s not &quot;her attracti=
veness is 10&quot;, it&#39;s &quot;she is a 10 on the attractiveness scale&=
quot;. Similarly, it&#39;s not &quot;his dive-quality was 9.5&quot;, it&#39=
;s &quot;his dive was a 9.5 on the Olympian scale for diving&quot;. The thi=
ng being measured is not a bridi, it&#39;s still an object or a concrete ev=
ent, and when it&#39;s an event it&#39;s not the bridi of the event that is=
 being measured, either.</div>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"im">
<br></div>
But you do allow {ni} both with and without a {ce&#39;u}, don&#39;t you? I =
find that odd. Why allow it for {ni} and not for {ka}? I think {ce&#39;u}-l=
ess {ka} died out for a good reason, and so in my opinion there should only=
 be one {ni}, either with or without {ce&#39;u}. I prefer it without.</bloc=
kquote>
<div style>I&#39;d be fine with a separate {ni}-without-{ce&#39;u} cmavo an=
alogous to {du&#39;u}. There are several things that {ni} seems to want to =
do, and that is one of them. The vague+with-{ce&#39;u} version seems to be =
the most common by far, however. This is partly because the full version is=
 in some sense not safe; you can&#39;t compare arbitrary ni, even when the =
ni themselves both exist. For example, {lo ni mi xendo cu zmadu lo ni lo ma=
mta cu laldo} is garbled nonsense even when both of those extents make sens=
e separately. Having the outer selbri do the reduction &quot;for&quot; you =
keeps you comparing apples to apples.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>mi&#39;e la latro&#39;a mu&#39;o</div></div=
></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3De=
n">http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;<br />

--089e013c64661e19a404d9fa7039--