Re: tremau

[JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

Lojbab:
>I'm not quite managing to keep up with the discussion in real time, but
>spotting this, I see a key point.  "tremau" to me isn't zmadu fi le ka
mitre
>which I would take as being "more displaying the property of being measured
>in mitres" or thus "more measureable in mitres" - probably true of things
>at the macro level than of interstellar distances or atomic ones, and of
>course more  true of daistances than weights.

So you say that  {tremau} to you is {zmadu fi le ka ke'a mitre xokauroi}
"more in how often it is measured in meters" than {zmadu fi le ka ke'a
mitre makau}  "more in how many meters it measures". Why would
you choose the more involved decomposition of the lujvo, when the
simpler one seems much more useful?

> tremau in not "longer".
>clanymau should be "longer", and we then beg the question of ni because
>we disagree whether it is "zmadu fi le ni/ka clani".

See my other posts for why I don't think clani is a good gismu to start
from for the concept of "longer".

 >I think here again, I disagree.  Two things need not be clani to have ni
clani.
>Just as two things need not be blanu to have ni blanu.

What do you mean by "having ni blanu"? Do you mean {ckaji le ni blanu}?
If so, I disagree. If you mean {se pagbu lo blanu} then I agree, something
need not be blue to have blue parts or components.

>Something zirpu
>is zmadu fi leni blanu than something xekri, and it depends on your color
>theory as to whether something blabi or zirpu is zmadu fi leni blanu.

     le zirpu le xekri cu zmadu le ka pixukau blanu cu pagbu ke'a
     The purple is more than the black in how much blue is a part of it.

I agree with that.

co'o mi'e xorxes