From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Aug 04 19:00:29 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 04 Aug 2005 19:00:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1E0rVT-00022S-GD for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 04 Aug 2005 19:00:19 -0700 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.200]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1E0rVP-00022K-0m for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 04 Aug 2005 19:00:19 -0700 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i23so573114wra for ; Thu, 04 Aug 2005 19:00:14 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=rBwe2zb/q7fVZIjHmTcUL2JB5/aqmjTYB7cb5pruiciCq4DQrUxLRHNyKEkD1JkUec+TH8zghGHD6hIrYeZeEPi//yIBNUjd06lrRNeKWrNmVIjWQOXRHLo/5inQA2ok/uxUjCybuWax+l6sCcXaz7+5cc5V/k8niiYCx4PSW1I= Received: by 10.54.68.16 with SMTP id q16mr2046836wra; Thu, 04 Aug 2005 19:00:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.68.12 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Aug 2005 19:00:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560508041900568c2480@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 23:00:13 -0300 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: the meter is a unit of length In-Reply-To: <20050804230545.49199.qmail@web81309.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <925d1756050804113558366203@mail.gmail.com> <20050804230545.49199.qmail@web81309.mail.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 10306 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 8/4/05, John E Clifford wrote: > > klani [ lai ] quantity > > x1 is a quantity quantified/measured/enumerated > > by x2 (quantifier) on > > scale x3 (si'o) > > Really? "quantity" in that sense (a bunch of > things)? If so, scratch the remark about {klani} > above and enroll {ni} as a se klani. One would, > however, have expected {klani} to have a place > for the sort of things involved, if this was the > real meaning:"The Giants are a quantity of > baseball players (coming up- to nine on a head > count)" I would say: la djaiants cu klani li so lo kelci The Giants amount to nine in players. but then I favour changing the x3 of klani to the more straightforward "units", rather than the more abstract "scale". If you want to keep a scale there, then you can say the same thing in a more roundabout way: la djaiants cu klani li so lo se gradu be lo kelci The Giants amount to nine on a scale whose units are players. This sidesteps the issue of how to refer to a scale by using the units instead (lo se gradu be ...). Another way of sidestepping it would be {lo ckilu be ...}, here using the property instead of the scale: la djaiants cu klani li so lo ckilu be lo ka xo kau kelci cu cmima ce'u The Giants amount to nine on a scale for measuring how many players it has. In any case, a simple {la djaiants cu klani li so} will probably be understood with the "right" x3 in many contexts. But how we can describe a scale other than as {lo se gradu be...} orī {lo ckilu be...}, I don't know. > > dukti [ dut ] opposite ; 'contrary' > > x1 is polar opposite from/contrary to x2 in > > property/on scale x3 > > (property/si'o) > > I wonder which this really is, polar opposite or > contrary (point or area, or specific v > indefinite). "Contrary" makes the best sense. lo zunle cu dukti lo pritu lo berti cu dukti lo snanu lo barda cu dukti lo cmalu lo broda cu dukti lo to'e broda > > If ni is the quantitative aspect of a property > > (which I might > > write as {ka se la'u ma kau ...}) then it's not > > clear how it can > > be a number, like se mitre, se klani, te merli > > or namcu. > > > Well it is again a reading on a scale (and an > amount, at least sometimes)so numbers seem > natural for many cases -- or numeroid things like > "huge." > (Suggesting a reading involving {la'u} doesn't > help a lot, since the rules for that -- and the > meaning when properly used -- are even less clear > than those for {ni}, as far as I can find.) For me the problem with {ni} is not so much unclarity of the possible meanings, there are basically three that I can identify, each pretty clear. The problem is that there is no consistency in sticking with just one of them, even for the same person. mu'o mi'e xorxes To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.