BPFK Section: Abstractors

From BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti, since moved here:










Section issues.



mi'e .lindar.

Here are the 'salient points' of a conversation between myself and Robin regarding {ni}.

I didn't understand {ni} very well. In the example I remember, {lo ni la .frank. ciska}, it took that to mean "the quantity of Frank's writing" whereas in another example {lo ni blanu} is how blue something is. Didn't really make sense, because if we apply the same logic to either one, we get either "the amount of blue things" or "the written-ness of Frank". Robin then expressed that using {ni} to talk about cubic feet per minute of flow with {lo ni flecu} would be much more useful then how I was interpreting it, which was "number of rivers". I had pointed out that it seemed some uses had an implied {ka}, while others did not.

Mark had apparently opined on the situation, saying "{lo pixra cu cenba lo ni blanu}, is that it? trouble is, {lo ni blanu} is exactly equivalent to some number. So it's like saying {lo pixra cu cenba li pimu}. Same problem as {jei}, which is utterly useless because it doesn't work the way we expected it to.". Robin then said that I should point out that {xo kau} and {xu kau} are current fixes (how much and if/whether or not).

I had started to look at it under the assumption that {lo ni ce'u ciska} was "the amount of writers" and {lo ni ciska ce'u} was "the amount written" for the sake of the argument. However, we also considered what it would mean to encompass the whole bridi, like {nu} or {du'u}, per Robin's thoughts. However, continuing the first thought, we established that {ni blanu} is a number of blue things, and {ni ka blanu} is the amount of the quality of being blue (the blueness), which is what the CLL defined as {lo ni blanu}. Continuing under this idea, we looked for a way to express 'the amount of flow' and 'the distance gone'. At this point we turned to combining with {nu} to say {ni nu klama} is the distance and {ni nu flecu} was the flow, after considering many other NU. However, this didn't sit well. What is the x1 of {ni}, then? Is it a number? If so, must it be a counting number (i.e. a number of actual things)? Can it be something more general? Is an amount-abstract different from a simple number? We then realised that x2 of ni is the scale upon which it's measured. So my original idea was out, though it might be neat to have a word that -did- work that way. {lo XX la .frank. ciska ce'u} how much frank wrote, perhaps representing a numeric value. *{.i lo (??) la .frank. ciska ce'u vau kei ku xlali le kagni be mi be'o ku vau} "The amount frank has written is bad for my business.". This logic leads to {lo (??) ka blanu} being the same as the CLL example of {lo ni blanu} being "the amount of blueness".


Soooooooo...... {ni} seems to imply {ka}. So why not divorce the two? {lo ni ka ce'u blanu kei kei ku} would be the amount of blueness, or just -how blue- something is. ... and ... I have no clue what it would mean by itself. Perhaps {lo ni ce'u blanu kei ku} is the amount of blue things.

The other option would be to better define it as {x1 is the amount or degree to which ce'u is applicable to bridi on scale x2}. For example then, {lo ni ce'u blanu kei ku} is still the degree to which something is blue, but it doesn't seem to have an implied {ka} in there somewhere. So in the case of {lo ni blanu} we're talking about ... luminosity? Contrast? However, there's still that bit about ce'u. So... should it apply to the whole bridi? lo ni la .lindar. blanu ku - The degree to which Lindar is blue? (I'd rate it about a pi'enonononopa as I'm wearing a grey shirt with very short dark navy sleeves.)

So then we can address RLP's concern of flow. {lo ni flecu} is the degree to which something flows. We're measuring how applicable something is to the selbri, and using a particular scale. In the first case we put me up on a scale of colour (I'm really not sure what's used to measure a colour, but you get the point) to talk about lo ni la .lindar. blanu, but now we're talking about how applicable something is to being described as flowing. So in {lo ni la .daniub. flecu} I can only think of either a viscosity rating or litres/second, and flecu doesn't sound like/hint at/have anything to do with viscosity AFAIK.

Finally, let's address the -other- CLL example. {lo ni la .frank. ciska}

Well... crap... that doesn't make any sense without a {ce'u} in there. So how do we read this? Is it measuring the degree to which Frank is a writer? Well, rather than reading this as habitual action, let's just assume we're talking about the present. So what is the degree to which Frank is currently a writer. Well, we'd have to, like the first two examples, measure the output. In the first example, we measured the degree to which I was applicable to blue, or measuring myself on a scale of blue (contrast/luminosity). In the second we measured the degree to which the Danube applied to flowing, or the flow of the Danube, which is litres per second (or kilolitres per minute or whatever one would use to measure a river). Finally, we would measure the degree to which Frank is a writer by measuring on a scale of writing. X letters/words/sentences/paragraphs/pages per second/minute/hour/day/week/month/year.

The important thing to note is that the ce'u-less version (wherein x1 is the measure to which the bridi is applicable) seems to be the most useful as it allows to talk about the most number of intended things. {lo ni blanu} is the degree to which something is blue, {lo ni ciska} is the degree to which somebody is a writer. Perhaps I should be specific... Maybe we should be very specific and say that it's the degree to which the x1 is applicable? If we need a version with ce'u, perhaps combine with {ka}? I'm not sure of the utility, so I couldn't rightly say.

So now everybody is in agreement and I've saved Lojban forever.

(You may donate as much money as you like now.)


In all seriousness, I like my painless version, but it seems to need stress-testing and wearing in. For example, I'm not exactly sure of the meaning of {lo ni la .frank. ciska xa lo so'e valsi}.
- Lindar ~ <3


Does a place filled with "zo'e" count as filled for the purpose of figuring out the first unfilled place? Does a place filled with "FA ku" count? I say yes and yes. There may be other parts of the language where this is important.
- John Cowan.

Created by rlpowell. Last Modification: Friday 22 of August, 2014 11:51:08 GMT by Ilmen.