Return-Path: <LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@BITMAIL.LSOFT.COM>
Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi  with smtp
	(Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tMdVc-0000ZUC; Mon, 4 Dec 95 18:12 EET
Message-Id: <m0tMdVc-0000ZUC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 34CEDF7B ; Mon, 4 Dec 1995 17:12:51 +0100
Date:         Mon, 4 Dec 1995 10:50:53 -0500
Reply-To:     John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Subject:      Re: "standard" sumti
X-To:         Lojban List <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  <199512031203.HAA15319@locke.ccil.org> from "Steven M. Belknap"
              at Dec 3, 95 00:12:17 am
Content-Length: 933
Lines: 22

la stivn. cusku di'e

> Either every gismu should have both a standard sumti and a scale sumti or
> no gismu should have them. The current seemingly random position and
> existence of standard sumti makes no sense. If all gismu had them, then one
> could say stuff like:
>
> X1 <selbri> X2...X(N-2) by standard X(N-1) on scale X(N)
>
> If none had them we could deal with standards using some other formalism.
> Among other benefits, such as regularizing all gismu, this would allow us
> some more options in expressing fuzzy sets.

Only 70 (4%) of the gismu have "by standard" places.  Most of these are
either clearly subjective or represent things which have more than
one objective definition (like the non-SI measurement units).
Appropriate use of BAI allows the addition of "by standard" and "on scale"
to any bridi.

--
John Cowan                                      cowan@ccil.org
                e'osai ko sarji la lojban.