[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Almost 100 (spun from Train Catching)
At 12:14 PM 03/13/2001 -0500, pycyn@aol.com wrote:
I find myself in a xodish situation, trying to work out a new case by analogy
with examples in The Book, in this case dealing with "almost 100" and working
out of sections 8 and 9 of chapter 18. In the latter, apparently similar
cases, like "at least 2" and "more than 2" are handled by {su'o re} and {za'u
re}. Now, the list in that section doesn't include "almost" but does include
"approximately", a slightly more general term in the same area. The previous
section contains another case apparently related, {da'a} "all but" along with
another group ro ... so'u that seem to be relative numbers dependent upon
some groups size (the logics of these are a real pain, depending upon a set
of parameters not very clearly motivated). But, since they all belong to the
same grammatical class, it would seem that they could all be used in the same
constructions and with roughly the same pattern of meaning.
Risky %^)
If this were the case then "pa" and "so" which are also number/digits
should also link to the following number to make such constructions, and
thus every multi-digit number would be a weirdness.
So, if {da'a}
could be used like {su'o} to indicate "one less than" whatever number
followed, it seems that {so'a} could be used similarly to indicate some
number slightly less than whatever number followed, {so'a panono} for "almost
100" along with {da'a panono} for 99 (with a fuzz factor probably) and {su'e
panono} for "at most 100" the others being in fact specifications of the last
and sharing its grammar.
But Lojbab says not (at least "I don't think so").
My opinion, because we explicitly built into a couple of words like da'a
means to glom onto the following number when it occurs before that
number. (This dates from the time when these were NOT all one selma'o,
BTW.) There wasn't a general rule.
As near as I can figure
out, his point is that the class these all belong to is that of the numerals
and that, therefeore, these words are to be interpreted numerically.
Be careful here. "Numerically" as in like numerals/digits, and not
numerically like "numbers".
So
that, for example, {so'a} is a number slightly less than the base, say 8 or 9
for base 10.
No, so'a as a DIGIT seems likely to mean a digit slightly less than the
base. As a standalone number, so'a is a pretty large number, relatively
speaking. That means that so'a prenu when talking in the context of the
world probably means billions, and not "8 or 9". so'a lojbanists hopefully
is a number in the hundreds.
{so'a panono} is either 8100 or 9100, with fuzz factors.
That is one way I could interpret it, and the one that fits best with the
digit concept. Another way might be equivalencing to set a scale (A large
number; i.e. 100 or so). The point is that there is no convention. so we
have to be careful. In non-initial positions, however, it seems hard to
imagine a non-digit interpretation such as:
And
{panoso'a} is 108 or 109 or some other version of "almost 110"
On this version, if generalized slightly (but without changing grammatical
categories), {su'e re} ought to mean (n * 10)+2 for n from 0 to 9,
disjoined, which it
clearly not intention in TB.18.8.
Clearly there is a problem in that some of the "digit" words have a special
semantics at the beginning of a number. But then there is precedent in
that the negative and positive signs have special meaning at the beginning
of a number, and no clear meaning anywhere else. If I wanted to have
su'ere be interpreted as a two digit number, I thus might have to force
the non-initial digital semantics by saying nosu'ere
Since Lojbab notes that many of the strings involving things other than
regular digits but in the same general class (PAs, of which there seem to be
half a dozen varieties)
Those varieties are my own informal classification, originally for sorted
grouping in LogFlash and in the cmavo list. There is no official
difference between a PA1 and a PA3, except that we generally want them
separated in a word list.
we seem to ahve a certain amount of freedom here.
There is apparently an established (but not in TB) pattern of these critters
at the right end of strings serving as fuzzy numbers as indicated above:
{soso'a} or {soda'a} as "almost 100" =ninety almost-base or "ninety
base-but-one."
It isn't in TB because Cowan and I couldn't agree that these patterns were
mandated. And indeed there were other interpretations than the ones I came
up with. So as usual we punted to the future per the ancient pc adage "Let
usage decide." I still like the digital interpretation wherever it makes
sense with possibly a different interpretation for initial position, but
only if we can agree what it means because it probably has to go into the
dictionary if it is in anyway different from the non-initial position version.
lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org