Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.17.21 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.17.21;
Message-ID: <517FE75C.2030901@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 17:46:36 +0200
From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] A use for {me SUMTI mei}
References: <5179678E.30007@gmx.de> <CAOQ8VDWmOO9vhawqm42ALE4wTLhj_Qa3mM07wQtXy0OE7Xq3mA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ8VDWmOO9vhawqm42ALE4wTLhj_Qa3mM07wQtXy0OE7Xq3mA@mail.gmail.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: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

la tsani cu cusku di'e
> {me SUMTI mei} is awesome...

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

> ... and it seems like we can nicely gloss it as
> "x1 is an amount (on an unspecified scale) represented by SUMTI. IMO,
> however, the x2 should simply be the type of stuff being quantified.
> This makes it hold more consistently with the BPFK definition of numeric
> mei.

Yes, that is exactly the problem I had with my proposed definition; it 
doesn't parallel {PA mei}. This one does, however, for the price of no 
longer being able to "quantify the quantity". Of course you can instead 
do this directly via SUMTI itself, so it's not a real problem I guess.

> Indeed, rather than numerically quantifying some x2s, which is what
> the numeric version does, we can vaguely quantify by comparison with
> another object.
>
> e.g. {.i mi pinxe lo me lo xance mei be lo djacu} {.i mi citka lo me lo
> palte mei be lo cakla}

Yes, that is a very practical place structure, and it has the same 
structure as {me SUMTI moi}, which is a big plus in my opinion.

I would still like to work out a Lojban definition, though.

Interestingly, it is possible to express {me SUMTI moi} in a way that 
gets rid of ordinality, using {ckini}:

x1 me SUMTI moi x2 boi x3 : x1 me x2 gi'e ckini SUMTI x3

And how about:

x1 me SUMTI mei x2 :
x1 me x2 gi'e mapti lo co'e be SUMTI lo ka ce'u klani ma kau zo'e/zi'o?

I introduced {lo co'e} because klani2 must be a number and the 
contextual vagueness needs to be mirrored in the definition. {lo co'e} 
would stand for things like {lo canlu} or {lo sefta} etc, which is left 
up to context. What do you think?

Also, now that we apparently have a use for both {me SUMTI moi} and {me 
SUMTI mei}, we should finish the job and give the rest of MOI an equal 
treatment. That is, we ought to look for meanings for {me SUMTI si'e}, 
{me SUMTI va'e} and {me SUMTI cu'o} or else we are left with an ugly 
hole in this paradigm.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

-- 
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.