Re: comments on the batch of lujvo etc. psoted thus far

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

lojbab:
> Are you aware that "no'e" is not best translated as "non" - that is "na'e".
> "no'e" is neutral on the scale, neither really yes or no, or borderline,
> and that is what I see as the essence of whole numbers wrt rationals.
> Yeah they can be treated as rational numbers, but they aren't linguistically
> what we think of when someone says "fractions".  They are on the other hand
> NOT "non-fractions, but rather neutral on the fraction vs. non-fraction
> scale.
>

Yes, I was thinking of na'e, sorry.

With a (hopefully) clearer picture, I now think:

{na'e frinu} means irrational.

{no'e frinu} does not mean integer. Integers are not neutral on the
fraction vs. non-fraction scale, since they are a special class of fractions.
And a special class that goes in the other direction from the irrationals. In
a sence, integers are further away from {na'e frinu} than {frinu} are, so they
can hardly be at the neutral point. Integers are {frinu}, even if they may be
considered as "not really fractions" in other languages. Unless {frinu} is not
a mathematical concept, and by it's definition it seems to be, then {no'e
frinu} to me is meaningless.

Does {ko'a broda gi'e no'e broda} make sense for any broda?


BTW, I just saw that a gismu for derivative already exists: parbi
(or maybe cenba parbi).

co'o mi'e xorxes.