Re: [lojban] Re: the meter is a unit of length

[John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>]

--- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 8/4/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >  What we mean when we say the English
> > sentence is something like {le se mitre cu ni
> > clani}, "How many meters a thing is is its
> > length," more or less (we could fill in some
> of
> > the blanks for greater precision here). 
> 
> {le se mitre} is a pure number. We can say, for
> example
> 
>   le se mitre be ti cu du le se grake be ta
>   The number of meters of this is the the
> number 
>   of grams of that.

Yes
 
> {ni} has been used or described both as a klani
> and as
> a se klani. If it's a se klani, then {lo se
> mitre cu ni ...}
> can make sense.

Iyt is a measure on some scale, which would
typically (but not necessarily) be numeric.
 
>   lo mitre cu klani
>   lo se mitre cu se klani
> 
> {ni} may be one of those, or perhaps something
> else
> ({ka (se) la'u ma kau}, for example).

I find the definition of {klani} unusually opaque
(which, given many of the other definitions, is
very opaque indeed); what is a quantity other
than a reading on some scale? We may not know the
value (nor the scale, come ro that) in a
particular case, but that does not mean there is
no quantity involved; just that we don't know
what it is (everything can be quantized?)
  
> > This
> > doesn't *say* that the meter is a unit of
> length,
> > but does the work that claim is meant to do
> and
> > so implicates it.  Given Lojban's
> predicatizing
> > of measures, it is a little hard to see what
> can
> > go in for the first place of {gradu}, if that
> > word means anything like its English
> translation
> > (which it very well may not, of course -- and
> > this problem seems some indication that it
> does
> > not).
> 
> I would say that the x1 of gradu is like the x1
> of mitre 
> and of klani. 

This doesn't look right.  x1 of {gradu}is a unit
of measurement, x1 of {klani} is a magnitude on a
scalem so presumably a number or some such thing,
x1 of {mitre} is a physical object (which x1 of
{gradu} may be, but need not be, and x1 of
{klani} can't be).   This may be as close as
Lojban gets to a Whorf effect: meters can't be
things here so we have to find some new way of
talking (and thinking?) around what we usually
say taking a meter to be a sort (but what sort?)
of thing.

>    lo gradu be ko'a = lo klani be li pa bei
> ko'a
> 
> 
> > > What is the difference between the x2 and
> x3 of
> > > {gradu}?
> > 
> > Trusting the English more than seems
> justified,
> > x2 is a scale (presumably a system of
> measures:
> > vaious units and some external specifications
> of
> > them (the old scratch on a platinum-iridium
> bar
> > or some weird multiple of the wavelength of
> some
> > color in some spectrum). It is interesting
> that
> > that is marked as {si'o}, the same as one
> > suggested marker to convert {mitre} into "is
> a
> > meter." 
> 
> The gi'uste more or less consistently proposes
> {si'o}
> for "scales", whatever they are:

Yes, this is as hard a question -- or worse --
than what a concept/idea is -- in this case,
where it is clearly not whatever it is we usually
think a concept or idea is (and that whole can of
worms we will, I hope, avoid altogether).
 
> ckilu [ ci'u ] scale
> x1 (si'o) is a scale of units for
> measuring/observing/determining x2 (state) 
> 
> gradu [ rau ] unit ; 'degree, grad' 
> x1 [magnitude] is a unit/degree of/on
> scale/reference standard x2
> (si'o) measuring property x3
> 
> 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)"

> merli [ mre ] measure
> x1 (agent) measures/evaluates x2 [quantity] as
> x3 units on scale x4
> (si'o), with accuracy x5
> 
> 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.
 
> But it is not clear to me how a bridi gets
> converted to a scale,
> and also {si'o} is proposed for very different
> things in {bangu},
> {klesi}, {manri}, {sidbo}, {sucta} and {tanru}.

Where it seems to mean something related to the
usual array of abstract objects used for to
explicate meaning -- and some times the not so
abstract psychological entities as well (just as
bad as English "idea" or "concept" in fact,
though not obviously the same).

> > x3 is just some property (or, more
> > likely, the quantitative aspect of some
> property
> > -- {ni})
> 
> 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.)