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

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

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

> On 8/5/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Of course, this leaves out the scales that
> are
> > not numeric (more or less): I remember the
> old
> > phallometer for measuring the arousal power
> of
> > porn and ranged from "flaccid" to "rock hard,
> > extra long and straight" or some such terms. 
> I
> > suppose those could be assigned numbers, but
> that
> > seems less than enlightening.  I also suppose
> > that as a place on {klani}, x2 is more or
> less
> > required to be numeric, since "limp," for
> > example, is hardly a quantity or a measure of
> > same.
> 
> I'd say {mapti} for that type of scale.

How exactly  will that work? For "x has value y
on scale z"  we have {x mapti y z} or maybe
something more complex at the z place?

> > > For me the problem with {ni} is not so much
> > > unclarity of
> > > the possible meanings, there are basically
> > > three that I can
> > > identify, each pretty clear. The problem is
> > > that there is no
> > > consistency in sticking with just one of
> them,
> > > even for the
> > > same person.
> > >
> > Spell out please, I think I have only thought
> of
> > the value-on-a-scale sense (forcing the
> creation
> > of some rather strange scales).
> 
> That one is the most commonly used in
> definitions, and
> probably what agrees most with what the ma'oste
> says:
> 
> ni [ nil ] amount abstract
> abstractor: quantity/amount abstractor; 
> x1 is quantity/amount of [bridi] measured on
> scale x2 
> 
> But when we get down to actual examples, or
> usage, that
> meaning is hardly seen at all, probably because
> it is not
> very useful.
> 
> For example, CLL contrasts it with {ka}:
> 
> <<
> 5.4)  le pixra cu cenba le ka ce'u blanu [kei]
>     the picture varies in-the property-of (X is
> blue)
>     The picture varies in being blue.
>     The picture varies in blueness.
> 
> is not the same as 
> 5.5)  le pixra cu cenba le ni ce'u blanu [kei]
>     the picture varies in-the amount-of (X is
> blue)
>     The picture varies in how blue it is.
>     The picture varies in blueness.
> 
> Example 5.4 conveys that the blueness comes and
> goes, whereas Example
> 5.5 conveys that its quantity changes over
> time.
> >>
OK (?) So 5.4 is true just in case the picture is
sometimes blue (does that mean is seen as blue
rather than say green -- as a whole -- or
contains some blue pigment) and sometimes not. 
In 5.5, this amounts to the value being somwtimes
positive (or perhaps greater than some specified
value), sometimes 0 (or less than the specified
value).  So {ni} is clearly different from {ka}
but this {ni} is not clearly different from the
earlier one: value on some scale.

> where {ni} is something like {ka se la'u ma
> kau} as opposed
> to {ka xu kau}. This is what I would say is the
> more useful 
> meaning of {ni}, and is the one indirectly
> supported by the 
> gi'uste, that has ka/ni suggested for many
> places, for example 
> with comparatives.
> 
Well, I still haven't plumbed the depths of {se
la'u}, but it looks to me that what you are
talking about is just the difference between and
all or none notion (ka}, and a finer grained one
{ni} (and, of course, {jei] can derive from
either (more or less directly)).  But I still
don't see how this is different from a value on a scale.