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:
> > > 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?
> 
> Maybe. Or maybe {ckini} could be used instead
> of {mapti}.

I can imagine working with either of these,
though the notion of a scale gets lost in both
cases -- and maybe it should be.
> 
> > > 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) 
> 
> That would depend on what counts as {lo pixra
> cu blanu}
> in the context.

Exactly my question; I take it that the
expression would be the same for both cases (one
of the ongoing objections to losing the old
meaning of {blanu} and the like).

> > and sometimes not.
> > In 5.5, this amounts to the value being
> sometimes
> > 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.
> 
> I see a clear difference between the value (for
> 
> example {li pinoci}) and the property of having
> 
> some value (for example {lo ka ce'u blanu se 
> la'u li pinoci). 

I guess that I don't see a property of having a
value here.  We have a function {le ni ce'u
blanu} which gives different values for the same
argument at different times (i.e., the function
-- or the argument -- needs a place for time),
that is all that is claimed (and, of course, it
is not literally claimed to be about different
times; it might as well be about different places
on the picture, as might the sentence about being
blue). I am puzzled by what {cenba3} might be; it
looks like another reading on another scale.
I suppose that along with any given value of the
function goes the property of having that value,
but I don't see a reason to insist it is there. 
I suspect that what is muddling here is the fact
that in the example, {ni ce'u blanu} is
functioning fully as a function, whereas in the
original sentence {ni blanu} has (covertly) the
place filled with the earlier argument {le
pixra}. A one-place function is very like a
predicate (well, a two-place relation) and so
might seem to be one here, but it needs the value
of the function for the given argument (the
second term of the relation) expressed before it
can really be taken as a property.  {ni le pixra
blanu}is a value (a place on a scale, say) {ni
ce'u blanu} is a function from things to such
values.  They are different of course, but that
does not change what {ni} does -- the difference
is tied up with the difference between {ce'u} and
{le pixra} working on the same {ni -- blanu}. 
Consider the corresponding difference between {le
ka le pixra blanu}, the particular blue the
picture is and {le ka ce'u blanu} the function
that assigns to each object its blue (if it has
any) and thus amounts to the property of being
blue (though in a different way from that in
which say {le du'o ce'u blanu} does.
  
> > 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)). 
> 
> That would be the difference CLL claims exists
> between
> the two examples, yes.
> 
> The difference between the two senses of {ni} 
> (the one I most often see in definitions vs.
> the one
> I most often see in use) is the difference
> between 
> a number or a value on a scale, and a property
> or
> having a value on a scale.
> 
See above: it seems to be just the difference
between the value {ni x blanu}(for a particular
identified x) and the function {ni ce'u blanu},
with the same meaning of {ni}