Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 21:08:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710150208.VAA14734@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Sender: Lojban list From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Subject: Re: clani To: lojban X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1191 Lines: 34 Lojbab >>If you intend to compare the longness (ka clani) of two objects, >>then you better pick two objects that have it. For a given ka clani, >>many objects won't have it. > >I disagree. Every measureable object has ka clani fi da. You are not disagreeing with me. I said for a given ka clani, (standard included, I made that clear in the part that you snipped) for that given ka clani, there are many measurable objects that don't have it. But I think that we are already discussing in circles about this point. > Otherwise you could >not say that another object was clanymau it (zmadu fi leka/ni clani). Exactly my point. >To >be less in ka/ni clani, it must still have a number/measure; otherwise >one cannot make a comparison Right. That's why I don't think that {ka clani} is a good translation of "length". Any measurable object has length, while not every measurable object has ka clani fi le ba'o se cuxna >- the proper answer would be na'i to a question >like "Is an atom longer than a neutrino", just as it would be to "Am I taller >than a thought?". I thought we were talking of measurable objects, at least I was. co'o mi'e xorxes