From cowan  Sat Mar  6 22:46:02 2010
Subject: Re: "standard" sumti
To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List)
From: cowan
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 10:50:53 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <199512031203.HAA15319@locke.ccil.org> from "Steven M. Belknap" at Dec 3, 95 00:12:17 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length:        889
Status: OR
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Dec  4 10:50:53 1995
X-From-Space-Address: cowan
Message-ID: <vz9jiwFA7CE.A.axF.qu0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

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.