From pycyn@aol.com Mon Sep 17 00:33:47 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 17 Sep 2001 07:33:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 61849 invoked from network); 17 Sep 2001 00:49:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 17 Sep 2001 00:49:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d02.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.34) by mta1 with SMTP; 17 Sep 2001 00:49:08 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.10.128afb31 (4511) for ; Sun, 16 Sep 2001 20:49:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <10.128afb31.28d6a27e@aol.com> Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 20:49:02 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] noxemol ce'u To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_10.128afb31.28d6a27e_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_10.128afb31.28d6a27e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 9/16/2001 4:51:28 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > la pycyn cusku di'e >=20 > > > > {la djumbos frica la tamtum le ka ce'u barda} > > > > {la djumbos frica la tamtum le ka xu kau ce'u barda} > > > >Why? The first is "They differ in bigness (in the usual whatever=20 > >dimension)" >=20 > To me it requires that they both have the property {le ka ce'u barda}. > The second one also requires that both have the te frica as property, > but one has {le ka ce'u ja'a barda} and the other {le ka ce'u na > barda}. So the two sentences have different meanings. >=20 The only way they can differ in le ka ce'u barda at all is for one of them = to=20 have it and the other not (unless we go over to fuzzy and one has it .8 and= =20 the other has it .5 or some such thing). If they they both have it, the=20 don't differ in it, but are dunli in it (look at the cases of that), howeve= r=20 much they may differ in something else. So the two sentences have the same= =20 meaning, ultimately {gonai la djumbos barda gi la tamtum barda} <>There is also the ever popular "in how big they are" >{le du'u [I think, maybe {nu}] makau ni ce'u barda}.=A0 I know you don't l= ike >this {ni}, but I don't understand any other one, and it fits nicely here a= s >does "in size" (le ni ce'u barda}. Each would be acceptable to me, but not both. They correspond to the two most common meanings {ni} has.> Since I think they are equivalent and both derived from {le ni la djumbos=20 barda na du le ni la tamtum barda}, I don't even understand what your "two= =20 meanings" mean. The transformation of one into the other (which seems=20 capable of going either way) is general and can always be done, so far as I= =20 can see (which admittedly does not get much beyond the examples I have=20 actually looked at, but there it works every time it is called for). {ni}= =20 takes a bridi and converts it into a property of a quantity to indicate the= =20 quantity of that bridi, however measures (and it is often hard to even begi= n=20 to figure that out -- but not in this case, where height or perhaps weight = or=20 volume all suggest themselves and all give the same sort of reading). In on= e=20 case the quantity is the subject of a larger bridi, generalized by {makau} = =20 but in the context particularized to the value for one or the other of Tom= =20 Thumb and Jumbo. In the other the whole is nominalized to refer to that=20 quantity in each case. But the underlying structure=20 (Quantity(bridi))(quantity) is the same throughout. I am pleased to note=20 that you no longer object to {le ni ce'u broda}, or do you see that as=20 significantly different from=20 {le mamta be ce'u}?=20=20 --part1_10.128afb31.28d6a27e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 9/16/2001 4:51:28 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias= @hotmail.com writes:

la pycyn cusku di'e

> > > {la djumbos frica la tamtum le k= a ce'u barda}
> > > {la djumbos frica la tamtum le k= a xu kau ce'u barda}
>
>Why? The first is "They differ in bigness (in the usual whatever=20
>dimension)"

To me it requires that they both have the property {le ka ce'u barda}.
The second one also requires that both have the te frica as property,
but one has {le ka ce'u ja'a barda} and the other {le ka ce'u na
barda}. So the two sentences have different meanings.

The only way they can differ in le ka ce'u barda at all is for one of t= hem to have it and the other not (unless we go over to fuzzy and one has it= .8 and the other has it .5 or some such thing). If they they both ha= ve it, the don't differ in it, but are dunli in it (look at the cases of th= at), however much they may differ in something else. So the two sente= nces have the same meaning, ultimately {gonai la djumbos barda gi la tamtum= barda}

<>There is also the ever popular "in how big they are"
>{le du'u [I think, maybe {nu}] makau ni ce'u barda}.=A0 I know you = don't like
>this {ni}, but I don't understand any other one, and it fits nicely= here as
>does "in size" (le ni ce'u barda}.

Each would be acceptable to me, but not both. They correspond
to the two most common meanings {ni} has.>

Since I think they are equivalent and both derived from {le ni la djumb= os barda na du le ni la tamtum barda}, I don't even understand what your "t= wo meanings" mean. The transformation of one into the other (which se= ems capable of going either way) is general and can always be done, so far = as I can see (which admittedly does not get much beyond the examples I have= actually looked at, but there it works every time it is called for). = ;{ni} takes a bridi and converts it into a property of a quantity to indica= te the quantity of that bridi, however measures (and it is often hard to ev= en begin to figure that out -- but not in this case, where height or perhap= s weight or volume all suggest themselves and all give the same sort of rea= ding). In one case the quantity is the subject of a larger bridi, generaliz= ed by {makau} but in the context particularized to the value for one = or the other of Tom Thumb and Jumbo. In the other the whole is nomina= lized to refer to that quantity in each case. But the underlying stru= cture (Quantity(bridi))(quantity) is the same throughout. I am please= d to note that you no longer object to {le ni ce'u broda}, or do you see th= at as significantly different from=20
{le mamta be ce'u}?
--part1_10.128afb31.28d6a27e_boundary--