Re: tremau

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

Lojbab:
>>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?
>
>I am having trouble debating this with you since I do not know whether you
>mean something different by "leka broda" in x3 of zmadu than I mean by
>"leni broda in the same position.

Your {le ni broda} is my {le ka broda la'u makau} in the x3 of zmadu.
That is one of the two different meanings that {ni} seems to have.

> In most cases, I would consider them interchangeable,
>since ni broda is simply a quantitative measurement of ka broda, but I am
>not sure that it is always the case, especially if you were to convince
>me that an object which is "na clani" also na se ckaji leka clani.

{ckaji}, not {se ckaji}, if my printed version of the gi'uste is to be
trusted.

>ni broda always has a scale/degree associated with it as part of its place
>structure.  ka broda does not necessarily have a scale (it is not part
>of the places structure of a ka abstraction) and hence I have trouble being
>sure what you mean by "zmadu fi le ka broda" in a  quantitative sense.

{zmadu fi le ka broda la'u makau}. If ko'a is your scale, then {zmadu
fi le ka broda la'u makau tela'u ko'a}.

Some broda already have a quantity place, so they may not need
the la'u, as in {zmadu fi le ka mitre makau}.  In these cases you wouldn't
use {ni} either, I think.

>(I won't even address that fact that your use of ke'a totally loses me
>for reasons we have long argued, so I cannot answer your specific questions
>at all).

I now changed it to ce'u, I had forgotten that this had been added.
Hope that helps.

co'o mi'e xorxes