scales, tolcipni

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>> >traji cipni
>> >mutce cipni
>> >milxe cipni
>> >tolmutce cipni
>> >na'e cipni
>>
>> Some things wrong with this scale.  I'm not sure what the difference is
>> between milxe and tolmutce, for one.
>
>I see {milxe} more as {normutce}.  {tolmutce} is very little.

So we are starting with different ideas of milxe.  Given a scalar function,
my intent for these was:


<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >
traji na    mutce na      milxe na | milxe           mutce             traji
to'e                              no'e                                  je'a
|              na'e                |

Given that each of these words have particular places on the scale,
treating each term as its own scale is at best ambiguous.  Is to'e milxe
some kind of mutce? Or some kind of milxe na

>>> And you are missing no'e cipni,
>>> which should be somewhere above na'e cipni but not sure where
>
>What would that be?  For that to make any sense, you would need a scale
>going from bird to anti-bird, and {no'e cipni} would be the midpoint.
>If {no'e cipni} makes sense, so does {to'e cipni}.

It does, kinda of.  It is just that I would have trouble describing one.
archeopteryx, or possibly the dinosaurs, qualify in my mind as no'e
cipni, and depending on exactly your parameters for a bird, maybe even a
bat (scientists might call a bat "na'e cipni", but non-science-aware cultures
might reject that classification".

lojbab