Proposed Definitions And Examples

Notes

Impact

Section issues.

ni

mi'e .lindar.


We have problems. Let's face it. Here's a conversation (with the unimportant bits picked out) between myself and Robin regarding {ni}.

18:18:23 PDT/-0700 <lindar> Well, the whole {ni} thing. I'm not sure I understand the confusion very thoroughly. {ni ciska kei} should be an amount of writers, and {ni mi ciska} should be how much I've written.
18:18:57 PDT/-0700 <lindar> If we want to talk about what I understand the other definition is, why not use {ka} for that?

18:19:09 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> I don't really know what you're talking about.

18:19:16 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> What do you understand the other definition to be?

18:19:23 PDT/-0700 <lindar> Writer-ness.
18:19:30 PDT/-0700 <lindar> Maybe I'm misunderstanding?

18:19:38 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> Where are you seeing this? I'm lost.

18:20:06 PDT/-0700 <lindar> I'm probably misunderstanding. I thought it was a debate as to whether or not {ni ciska kei} was amount of writer-ness or number of writers.

18:20:20 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> Ah.

18:20:40 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> Well, in that case, it's not terribly relevant, but I can imagine other cases where it would be.

18:20:49 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> {flecu} leaps to mind.

18:21:09 PDT/-0700 <lindar> number of rivers

18:21:13 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> Being able to say {le ni flecu} to mean, like, cubic feet per minute of water flow sort of thing: very helpful.

18:21:22 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> And that's definitely not {ka}

18:22:29 PDT/-0700 <lindar> That would be {le ni flecu ce'u} then, for the definition that I actually understand. The amount of substance?
18:22:45 PDT/-0700 <lindar> le ni ce'u flecu would be the amount of rivers...

18:23:18 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> Nooo, that's the amount of ... water-ness, or something. {ti flecu lo djacu}

18:23:33 PDT/-0700 <lindar> ?
18:23:52 PDT/-0700 <lindar> That would be le ni ka flecu ce'u, wouldn't it?

18:23:53 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> THe x2 is a substance, not an amount of the substance.

18:24:09 PDT/-0700 <lindar> Yes, and so {ni flecu ce'u} would be the amount of the substance, right?

18:24:13 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> Either it's water or oil, it can't be more-water or more-oil.

18:24:15 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> I don't see how.

18:24:42 PDT/-0700 <lindar> Hmmm... I'm saying that the ce'u is the number-of part.

18:24:52 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> But you can't have a number-of water-ness.

18:25:00 PDT/-0700 <lindar> It's not water-ness.
18:25:03 PDT/-0700 <lindar> That's ka.
18:25:19 PDT/-0700 <lindar> flecu is x1 is a river/flow of x2.

18:25:24 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> Yes. x2 is the substance.

18:25:26 PDT/-0700 <lindar> So the x2 is water, in this case.
18:25:37 PDT/-0700 <lindar> So ni flecu ce'u is an amount of flowing things.

18:25:40 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> No.

18:25:50 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> x2 isn't "some water".

18:25:58 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> It's "water, the concept/substance/thing".

18:26:11 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> You can't have an *amount* of "the concept of water".

18:26:19 PDT/-0700 <lindar> Maybe we should pick a different word?

18:26:28 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> {ni flecu ce'u} is the number of substances flowing, if it's anything at all.

18:26:55 PDT/-0700 <lindar> Hmmm...

18:26:56 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> Like if you have a mixture of water and oil flowing, then {flecu re da}, so {ni flecu ce'u} is re

18:28:10 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> < clsn> {lo pixra cu cenba lo ni blanu}, is that it? < clsn> trouble is, {lo ni blanu} is exactly equivalent to some number. < clsn> So it's like saying {lo pixra cu cenba li pimu}. — that, or some equivalent of it, needs to go on whatever page has {ni}; it's important.

18:28:28 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> < clsn> Same problem as {jei}, which is utterly useless because it doesn't work the way we expected it to. — that too.

18:29:34 PDT/-0700 <lindar> Well, crap.

18:29:37 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> Also point out {xo kau} and {xu kau} as current fixes.

18:29:41 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> Please and thank yuo.

18:29:58 PDT/-0700 <lindar> Ehm... I don't follow?

18:30:01 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> Yes. If {lo ni flecu} is *not* "the amount of flow", there is no way to get that with ni+ce'u

18:30:28 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> {xo kau} is "how much" in a way that {ni} often is not.

18:30:32 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> Same with {xu kau} and {jei}

18:30:47 PDT/-0700 <lindar> Hm.
18:31:02 PDT/-0700 <lindar> This wasn't for the tiki, this was just for my own understanding. However, I'll be sure to point that out.
18:31:15 PDT/-0700 <lindar> Can we try this again using {ciska}?
18:31:46 PDT/-0700 <lindar> As I understood it, {ni ciska} is a number of writers, and {ni ciska ce'u} is how much a writer has written.

18:31:50 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> Why? That one's easily solvable.

18:31:57 PDT/-0700 <lindar> Is that correct?

18:31:59 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> The whole point is that there are cases that aren't.

18:32:16 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> "{ni ciska} is a number of writers" — I don't know if that's true or not.

18:32:32 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> I don't know if {ni broda} == {ni ce'u broda} or if it is instead the amount of the whole relation.

18:32:41 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> I think it should be the latter, but I don't know which it is currently, or if that's even defined.

18:32:51 PDT/-0700 <lindar> I would say that it's x1 unless otherwise specified.
18:32:57 PDT/-0700 <lindar> So {ni blanu} is a number of blue things.
18:33:03 PDT/-0700 <lindar> ni ka blanu is the amount of blueness.

18:33:03 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> Then how do you say "the amount of flow" or "the amount of going"?

18:33:10 PDT/-0700 <lindar> ni ka?

18:33:14 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> Nope.

18:33:25 PDT/-0700 <lindar> What would {ni ka ce'u flecu} mean, then?

18:33:33 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> "how far I went" is {lo ni mi klama} if ni covers the whole thing.

18:33:41 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> It is certainly *not* {lo ni ka mi klama}

18:33:45 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> I don't even know what that is.

18:34:08 PDT/-0700 <lindar> The amount of destination-ness?

18:34:18 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> {ni ka ce'u flecu} — I havent' the slightest idea; I have no idea what ka does with flecu at all.

18:35:03 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> Now, what I *would* accept is {nu}

18:35:03 PDT/-0700 <lindar> You seem to imply that the x1 is important in the degree to which it flows.

18:35:13 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> Ummm. That's ...

18:35:19 PDT/-0700 <lindar> ?

18:35:22 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> wow, I've completely failed to communicate.

18:35:31 PDT/-0700 <lindar> Maybe I've failed to understand?

18:35:33 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> When I say {lo ni flecu}, I am specifically *not* referring to the x1

18:35:41 PDT/-0700 <lindar> Oh, but the whole thing.
18:35:42 PDT/-0700 <lindar> Okay.

18:35:44 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> I'm saying "the amount of the flecu relationship"

18:35:45 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> Yes.

18:35:59 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> And I'm saying that unless you can say that, there are things you can'tn say using {ni} that it seems like you should be able to.

18:36:03 PDT/-0700 <lindar> So you're operating under the idea that, like {nu} or {du'u}, there is no ce'u.

18:36:18 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> Right.

18:36:25 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> I don't know if that's actually currently true; I don't *think* it's defined.

18:36:40 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> {nu} may actually fix this: {lo ni nu flecu}, {lo ni nu klama}, that sort of thing.

18:36:45 PDT/-0700 <lindar> It seems like it should have an implicit ce'u and be used in tandem with something else.
18:36:49 PDT/-0700 <lindar> I like your nu solution.

18:36:54 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> Or zu'o, rather than nu

18:36:55 PDT/-0700 <lindar> The amount of event...
18:37:15 PDT/-0700 <lindar> Hmm...

18:37:16 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> Erm, pu'u, rather.

18:37:37 PDT/-0700 <lindar> Well, are we doing this under the presupposition that {ni} does work like "x1 is a number of ce'u"?

18:37:37 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> Regardless, all this, and the stuff clsn mentioned, is *exactly* the knid of shit we need added to these pages. That's the contention search stuff I was going for.

18:38:02 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> That's what the clsn quotes were about. What is the x1 of ni? Is it a number?

18:38:07 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> if so,

18:38:15 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> must it be a counting number, i.e. a number of actual things?

18:38:31 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> Can it be something more general? Is an amount-abstract different from a simple number?

18:38:44 PDT/-0700 <lindar> Ehm...
18:42:32 PDT/-0700 <lindar> So, let's assume for one wild second that {ni} works like "x1 is a number of/amount of X." with an implicit ce'u. So {lo ni blanu kei ku} is a number of blue things, and {lo ni ka blanu kei kei ku} is an amount of blue-ness (rather than the blueness itself).
18:42:59 PDT/-0700 <lindar> Then what clever combination do we use to express the amount of flow with {lo ni ??? flecu}?
18:43:17 PDT/-0700 <lindar> nu, zu'o, and pu'u seemed to be valid candidates.
18:44:44 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> <lindar> So, let's assume for one wild second that {ni} works like "x1 is a number of/amount of X." with an implicit ce'u. — note the "amount of" part. A really big issue is that we don't know what that means.

18:45:00 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> pu'u and zu'o are both subsets of nu

18:45:12 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> Any nu-and-friends, IMO.

18:45:36 PDT/-0700 <lindar> I would think {lo ni nu flecu} would be a number of events of flowing, which almost makes sense. {lo ni zu'o flecu} seems to be a number of activities of flowing (not really sure how that makes sense), and {lo ni pu'u flecu} seems to be a number of processes of flowing.

18:45:49 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> That's definitely one interpretation, yes.

18:45:53 PDT/-0700 <lindar> So, operating under this idea, {nu} seems to be the closest to "amount of flow".

18:46:06 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> In which case we're back to not being able to use {ni} to say "amount of flow", because that's not any of those at all.

18:46:31 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> cfm is not at all like "number of events of flowing".

18:46:32 PDT/-0700 <lindar> {lo ni ka flecu} would be... the amount of flowingness...
18:46:36 PDT/-0700 <lindar> Which really seems like the right answer.

18:47:03 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> It's the amount of the property of flowing; I don't know what that means.

18:47:21 PDT/-0700 <lindar> Yes, but x2 of ni is the scale upon which it's measured.

18:47:22 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> And ka *must* have a ce'u, as I understand it.

18:47:31 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> du'u is the ce'u-less ka

18:47:36 PDT/-0700 <lindar> {ni ce'u ka ce'u flecu}

18:47:48 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> the x1 of flecu doesn't help at all, as I've said.

18:47:56 PDT/-0700 <lindar> The other idea of course is to make a ce'u-less ni. >_>

18:48:21 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> the amount of the property of being a flow does not seem to me to be a lot like "how much is flowing?"

18:48:27 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> But I may be missing it.

18:48:49 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> In general, i don't know what an amount of a property is.

18:48:55 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> Because properties don't have scales, generally.

18:49:32 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> <lindar> The other idea of course is to make a ce'u-less ni. >_> — I'm pretty sure taht is what we have.

18:49:41 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> {lo ni blanu} is in the CLL as "the amount of blueness".

18:50:10 PDT/-0700 <lindar> Huh.

18:50:16 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> You didn't know htat?

18:50:21 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> I thought that was the hwol ebasis of this discussion.

18:50:27 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> That you were disagreeing with that.

18:50:38 PDT/-0700 <lindar> Where's the section where it talks about the amount of writing a guy does?

18:50:52 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> How the hell should I know?

18:51:20 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> http://dag.github.com/cll/11/5/ — I see nothing in there about ciska.

18:51:27 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> But it sure looks like ni cannot take a ce'u

18:51:41 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> Ah, wait, it can; nm.

18:51:50 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> But it certainly doesn't work in the way you expected it to.

18:51:52 PDT/-0700 <lindar> http://dag.github.com/cll/11/12/
18:51:54 PDT/-0700 <lindar> Right here.
18:51:56 PDT/-0700 <lindar> 12.2

18:52:11 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> OK.

18:52:11 PDT/-0700 <lindar> The quantity of Frank's writing.

18:52:13 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> Yep.

18:52:24 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> {ni} is *very* fuzzy. It's really ill-defined.

18:52:45 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> *I*, for one, want a way to use it to *say* "the quantity of frank's writing"; I don't much care what that way is.

18:52:53 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> And I've totally lost track of what your point was, if any.

18:52:57 PDT/-0700 <lindar> Which is why I thought it needed ce'u + ka.

18:53:06 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> Which?

18:53:21 PDT/-0700 <lindar> In that example, that's how I thought ni worked.

18:53:45 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> You lost me.

18:53:48 PDT/-0700 <lindar> It looks like, removing the ka, {lo ni la .frank. ciska ce'u}. The quantity of Frank's writing.

18:54:00 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> Look at 12.1

18:54:01 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> Yes.

18:54:24 PDT/-0700 <lindar> So, if we stay consistent and keep the same meaning, {lo ni blanu} is the amount of blue things.

18:55:13 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> I don't *think* so, no.

18:55:23 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> ciska2 is "writing"; there can be more or less of it.

18:55:29 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> So an amount of ciska2 is how much writing you have

18:55:56 PDT/-0700 <lindar> Yes, but {lo ka ciska ce'u} is the written-ness.

18:56:03 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> How is that relevant?

18:56:33 PDT/-0700 <lindar> Cos apparently {lo ni blanu} is the amount of blue-NESS. The amount of the quality of something being blue.

18:57:48 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> But {le ni ce'u blanu} can't be the number of blue things, because with {le ni cisku ce'u} you are varying the one ciska2 hting, not adding more of them.

18:58:13 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> We're not changing numbers of things; we're talking about one particular blanu1 or ciska2, and how it varies in that place.

18:58:45 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> A particular ciska2 can vary in how much writing it is; a particular blanu1 can vary in how much blue it is.

18:59:46 PDT/-0700 <lindar> The ka ce'u blanu is the blueness, and the ka ciska ce'u is the written-ness... yes?

19:00:03 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> Yes.

19:00:12 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> I *do* understand where you're going; I'm just explaining the current state.

19:00:26 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> You're saying that {ni} seems to sort-of incorporate {ka}, and that's weird.

19:00:39 PDT/-0700 <lindar> Pricisely.

19:01:01 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> {le ni ce'u blanu} is *how blue something is*. {le ka ce'u blanu} is *whether or not it is blue*.

19:01:08 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> AFAICT, that's the only difference.

19:01:32 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> Whether it's useful to have two words to make that distinction, I dunno.

19:01:54 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> xorxes can almost certainly do a better job of taking this apart than I can, btw. I have trouble wiht things this abstract. My head literally hurts from this convo.

19:02:34 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> IOW, I think you're right: I think {ni} is currently "how much something exhibits the property of stuff".

19:02:45 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> And we could probably split it up and get a lot more expressiveness out of it that way.

19:04:49 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> Another big issue is that {ni} as currently defined is an amount on a *scale*, not a number of things.

19:05:00 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> So you *can't* say "the number of blue things" with {ni}.

19:05:06 PDT/-0700 <lindar> Huh.

19:05:10 PDT/-0700 * lindar didn't really consider that.

19:05:21 PDT/-0700 <rlpowell> I only just thought of it myself.


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 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.



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



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