Re: ka/ni kama

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

Lee:
 >> 2a.                 mi nelci le ni la meris cu ninmu
 >> ...
>> In these cases, we can't replace {le ni...} with a number.
>
>As an engineer, the issue to me seems to be that you're simply dropping
>the units.

As a physicist, I would never even dream of doing such a thing!  :)

>{le ni broda} is not a dimensionless quantity like {li pa}
>(though it might be in certain contexts), it is a measurement in units
>of broda-ness.

If you're right about this, then where would you use it? I can't find
any gismu that has a place for a dimensioned quantity.

And then you must disagree with things like:

        le ni la djan cu ricfu cu du li piso'i
        The extent to which John is rich is a lot.

because {li piso'i} is a dimensionless quantity and you couldn't
equate it to a dimensioned one.

Your definition would be a third possibility for {ni}, but I don't see
where you would use it. (Liking 1.4 womanlyness units seems
strange to me. You'd not be saying that you like women who
measure that, but rather that you like the units themselves.)

>The extent to which Mary is womanly is not "1.4", it's
>"1.4 womanlyness units", and I can indeed like "1.4 womanlyness units"
>independently of Mary or Jane.  I fail to see any real difference
>between these two examples.

To me they're quite different.

>Perhaps that's something that could stand to be clarified: where
>Lojban syntax allows "numbers" (i.e. {mekso} or {ni}), is it intended
>that they semantically represent some quantity, along with an implied
>units of measure, and if so, is there a good general technique for
>including them if needed?

I don't think that's what's intended. Where the syntax allows numbers
they are dimensionless numbers. It all works out very nicely.

>I'm also beginning to see lojbab's point about {ni mitre} being more
>akin to precision/measurability than abstract length.

With that I agree, if we're on the indirect question modality of ni.
(Not in the number modality, of course.) In the indirect question
modality, {ni mitre} is {ka mitre la'u makau} "to what extent
x1 measures x2 in meters".

>But that leaves
>open the question of how one would express pure quantities with
>dimensions: how does one express "3 meters" as a sumti if it is not
>{le ni mitre li ci}?  Perhaps {le du'u mitre li ci}?

First, what do you need to express "3 meters" as a sumti for?

{le ni mitre li ci} (in indirect question modality for ni) is the extent
to which something measures three meters.

{le du'u mitre li ci} is the fact that it measures 3 meters. For
example:

            mi do tugni le du'u ta mitre li ci
            I agree with you that that is 3 m long.

There is no easy way of expressing the dimensioned number
"3 meters" as a sumti, nor is there an obvious need for it, is there?

co'o mi'e xorxes