Re: clani

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

Lojbab
>>If you intend to compare the longness (ka clani) of two objects,
>>then you better pick two objects that have it. For a given ka clani,
>>many objects won't have it.
>
>I disagree.  Every measureable object has ka clani fi da.

You are not disagreeing with me. I said for a given ka clani,
(standard included, I made that clear in the part that you snipped)
for that given ka clani, there are many measurable objects
that don't have it. But I think that we are already discussing in
circles about this point.

 > Otherwise you could
>not say that another object was clanymau it (zmadu fi leka/ni clani).

Exactly my point.

>To
>be less in ka/ni clani, it must still have a number/measure; otherwise
>one cannot make a comparison

Right. That's why I don't think that {ka clani} is a good translation
of "length".  Any measurable object has length, while not every
measurable object has ka clani fi le ba'o se cuxna

>- the proper answer would be na'i to a question
>like "Is an atom longer than a neutrino", just as it would be to "Am I
taller
>than a thought?".

I thought we were talking of measurable objects, at least I was.

co'o mi'e xorxes