TECH: RE: <xoi>

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

Stivn
> >> le rozgu pafi'uci xoi barda le ka melbi kei le mi'o ckilu
> >> The rose is fuzzily 1/3 big in property beauty on our (predefined) scale.
> la xorxes cusku di'e
> >Rather:
> >The rose is big in property beauty compared to our scale.
> >(truth value of that sentence = 1/3)
> If this is how you are translating <xoi>, how is it different from
> <jei>? You are not using <xoi> in the way and originally proposed.
> Here's what and wrote:
> la 'and cusku di'e
> >If a lujvo, something including {murse} "dawn/dusk" might be good.
> >But this isn't the job for a brivla, for if you are content with
> >a brivla then we already have what you need: {jei}.
> >   li pi mu jei mi clani
> >   "O.5 is the truth value of that I am tall"
> >In contrast, I want us to be able to say
> >   mi pi mu xoi clani
> >   pi mu xoi ku mi clani

I will post properly on this topic when the debate has died down a
bit. In the meantime, I should clarify.

I intended {pi ro xoi} to = {jaa} and {pi no xoi} to = {na}.
I wasn't saying that there is at present anything unsayable without
{xoi}: I recognize that circumlocutions with {jei} and other devices
are possible. But equally, so could we do without {na} and {jaa} and
make do with {jei}. But that we would find too cumbersome. So it's
on grounds of convenience that I felt {xoi} to be motivated.

It is my impression that this is the understanding Jorge formed of
my proposal.

> As I've mentioned earlier, I am still baffled as to why you and and are
> using <clani> to mean "long" in contrast to "short" instead of "has
> length" which is what the dictionary says <clani> means. Where did this
> use come from, and where is it documented?

My giuste, which is not bang up to date, has:

   clani  long    x1 is long in dimension/direction x2 (default
   longest dimens.) by meas. stand. x3;

Mind you, I would rather you were right. I find all these antonymous
gismu pairs like clani/tordu to be antipathetic - I'd much rather
discard tordu, make clani mean "has length" and say "mutce clani"
and "milxe clani" for long and short. The present noisome system
is (ill) motivated by the objectionable need to be culturally neutral.

> le rozgu pafi'uci xoi melbi ma'i le mi'o listyckilu
> "The rose is fuzzily 1/3 beautiful on our ordinal scale."
> or
> "The rose is beautiful to fuzzy extent 1/3 by the standard specified
> in our (previously agreed upon) ordinal scale."

It looks to me like you want a XOI/MOI/ROI type selmao that takes
a number and yields a **NAhE**. I think I agree with you that this
would allow us to say things that at present cannot be said
[don't anyone give me that bullshit about every language being able
to say anything, given enough time]. I drafted a proposal for a
new selmao of this sort, but decided to hold off posting it until
things settled down on the list.

Anyway, consider such a selmao, XIhO, with one member {xi'o}/{xio},
proposed. It works like XOI except that XIHO yields a NAhE while
XOI yields a NA.

The Cowanian counterpart to XIhO is {jea xi <number>}, I imagine.

---
And