Re: gradu

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

> >        x1 is x2 units (default=1) on scale/property x3
> >Unfortunately, I can't find a gismu with that structure.
> He doesn't need the default, and therefore klani has what he needs.

Yes, {klani} is good. Why isn't it worded like all the other
measure-words? And why isn't 1 the default for its x2, like for all the
others?

I now think that the place structure of {gradu} is also good, although
again it is not worded as it should. It belongs with the series:

.....
kilto   x1 is a thousand of x2 in dimension/aspect x3 (default is units)
xecto   x1 is a hundred of x2 in dimension/aspect x3 (default is units)
dekto   x1 is ten of x2 in dimension/aspect x3 (default is units)
gradu   x1 is a unit of x2 in dimension/aspect x3 (default is units)
decti   x1 is a tenth of x2 in dimension/aspect x3 (default is units)
centi   x1 is a hundredth of x2 in dimension/aspect x3 (default is units)
milti   x1 is a thousandth of x2 in dimension/aspect x3 (default is units)
.....

The current wording makes it difficult to see how well it fits there.

> gradu isn't really a generic unit, though it has probably been used as
> such.  It was originally meant to be the category containing the units,
> just as skari contains all the colors.

Yes, the problem seems to be the confusing keywords and that the
definitions are not worded as for other equivalent concepts. {klani}
is the generic unit, so it should be worded as such.

> Now with dikyjvo, I think both skari and gradu have trouble being used
> in lujvo as they were intended (cindu skari would be the color of an
> oak, but should have the generic colr place struture, and not a
> derivative of skari's place structure),

The useful gismu for creating colour-words should have the structure
"x1 has the colour of x2". Then {cindyskari} would indeed mean
"x1 is oak-coloured".

The x3 and x4 of {skari} are a general problem of many gismu. "under
conditions" and "to observer" places should not be part of any gismu.
(Except {vanbi} and {zgana}, of course.)

The x2 of {skari} is hard to understand. What should it be filled with?
A property? What's the difference between {ta skari le ka blanu} and
{ta ckaji le ka blanu}?

If {skari} had the right place structure ("x1 is of the colour of x2")
then {kamska} would mean "x1 is the property of being the colour of x2",
which is what {se skari} presumably means now.

I propose that the place structure of {skari} be changed to "x1 is of
the colour of x2", which is much more useful than the current one.

> and maybe Nick needs to include
> a note about these kinds of words. rango, danlu a nd a few others have
> this problem too.

{danlu} seems to be perfectly normal, and {rango} is pretty standard too.
What is the problem with them?

Jorge