Re: abstractor place structures

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

>>mlatu be fi lo selci?
>>You must have mistyped something.
>ni mlatu kei (be) fi lo selci

ni doesn't have an x3 either. And if you mean {fe}, which you
wouldn't need anyway, le ckilu cu selci ma?

 >>                        lei va mlatu cu klani li paci le kamselkancu
>>
>I have no idea if that lujvo has lost the counter place %^)
>Whether it is "abstracted out" or not, it is still implicitly relevant
>unless zi'o-filled, or a lujvo is created which explicitly does not have a
>counter.

You may be right. Make it:

            lei va mlatu cu klani li paci le kamzilkancu

>>>But I would prefernot to stretch klani/ni to be used
>>>for counts of objects.
>>How do you interpret the "enumerated by x2" bit in the gi'uste
>>definition of klani?
>I was  specifically pointing to the x2 be a number/quantifier.
>I am sure that there is SOME x3 (whether we can agree on what it is)
whereby
>le ni mlatu cu klani li xo le broda
>asks for how many cats there are in which case the ni abstraction is
>enumerated by that count.  (Enumerated can means imply that it has a
> specific number applicable to it).

Then why do you say that it is stretching it to use klani for number
of things?

>>>I am willing to have a count always to imply a counter.
>>That's fine. I am not, and so I look for ways to say in Lojban
>>what I want to say.
>zi'o forever %^)

I thought that disliking zi'o was one of the few things you
and I agreed on! Oh well...

>> >mitre and
>>>the like are units (gradu),
>>If you mean {ro mitre cu gradu} then I disagree.
>
>Maybe I mean anti-ka(le ka mitre) cu gradu %^)

And what is that?

>Or maybe I need an anti-si'o.  Clearly
>lo si'o mitre  is not a gradu, but it is certainly releated to lo gradu.

It probably is related. It is also related to klani. That doesn't
help us.

>>>and I intended, back before people got hung up
>>>on place structure conventions, that new measurement units would be lujvo
>>>based on gradu.
>>I don't understand your point. Are you saying that because that's
>>what you intended back then we should avoid any rational analysis?
>No  I am saying that the rational analysis must follow the needs of the
>language user and is secondary to it.

But I do, as a language user, need a rational way of creating new
measure words with the same place structure as the basic measure
words. Regularity of place structures is a plus for language users.

>>How do you use {gradu} to say "the sugar is 3 in cups", in a way that
>>parallels {le sakta cu grake li xanono} for "the sugar is 600 in grams"?
>You can't, but a certain pattern of lujvo involving gradu should
>have that  pattern of sumti structure.  Thus, I THINK I have
>"newton" in my files as "baplygradu" assuming that metric unist would have
>preeminent use of shortest lujvo.  And baplygradu would have a place
structure
>such that you would say x1 is measured in newtons as x2, with other
parameters
>x3, x4, x5 as required my place struture analysis.

Sounds extremely ad hoc to me.

Why not "baplai"? You can't argue against it on the basis
of the place structure of klani if you are going to absolutely ignore
the places of gradu in forming yours anyway.

>>dekto   x1 is ten [1x10**1] of x2 in dimension/aspect x3
>>?????   x1 is one [1x10**0] of x2 in dimension/aspect x3
>>decti     x1 is a tenth [1x10**-1] of x2 in dimension/aspect x3
>
>When they come up with a metric prefix for 10 ** 0, tyhen we'll make a
gismu
>for it %^).

But my point was that we already have one: gradu. The more regularity
there is in place structures the better for the ease of learning language.

co'o mi'e xorxes