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

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

--- Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.hn.org> wrote:

> John E Clifford wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> To me, x1 of {klani} is a thing being measured,
> just as x1 of {mitre} 
> is, so it's a general unit word. So I use it to
> form words like 
> {tcatymuclai}, using them like {litce} or
> {dekpu} or other such words: 
> {le vi sanso cu tcatymuclai li re}.

As I said later, scratch that comment about
{klani}.  But x1 does not appear to be a unit,
though it is what is measured (to x2 on scale
x3).  Your compounds picks up x3 to "bury" in the
predicate.  In that sense, {klani} is just the
word for making these compounds (though, note,
you are technically following xorxes' suggestion
and making x3 (as it were) the unit, not the
scale (which is a goood idea, since we know what
the units are generally but the scale escapes
us).  Although again we have the issue of what to
do with scales that don't have units (comparative
and qualitative scales in the old terminology).