Date:  Thu, 16 Oct 1997 20:17:54 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710170117.UAA26398@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Subject:      Re: ka/ni kama
X-To:         lojban <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 1305
X-From-Space-Date: Thu Oct 16 20:17:55 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

Lee:
>> > How do you answer {ma junta}?
>> That's a good question! I wonder why there is such a word
>> for weight but not for things like length, size, age, etc.
>If quantities are as you say (and that's a good way for them
>to be), then {junta} is wrong.

Upon further thinking, I think this is how to use junta:

- ma junta ti
-le ka ce'u bunda li ci cu junta ti
The property of being 3 in pounds is the weight of this.

i.e, the x1 of junta has to be a property. But it is a very
atypical gismu in any case.

 >And that brings to mind the obvious place one might want dimensioned
>quantities: in mekso.  If one can say that 2+2=4 without implying
>that 4 of something are around somewhere, why can I not say that a
>newton is a kg*m/sec^2 without implying that any pushing is going on?

Let's see if this works:

    le ka ce'upira klanrniutoni ce'upire cu du
    le ka ce'upire pliji le se ki'ogra be ce'upira le pliji
      be le se mitre be ce'upira be'o bei le tenfa be
        le se snidu be ce'upira be'o bei li ni'ure

    The relationship X1 is X2 in newtons is equal to the relationship
      X2 is the product of the kilograms of X1 times the product of
        the meters of X1 times the seconds of X1 to the power -2.

I'm not sure that works, and in any case it's ugly.

co'o mi'e xorxes