Re: Lojban ML: Syllogism and sophism

["Jorge J. Llambías" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

Lojbab:
> I can think of
>no English sentence where I could use (with meaning)
>"1-B, where B is the blueness of the picture", without in some way
>introducing some units to measure blueness at the very least

The expression "1-B" strongly suggests that the scale goes from
0 for no blueness to 1 for maximum blueness, however that be
defined. With scales that go from 0 to 1 it is very common to
see the expression "1-x" which is of course in a sense the
complement of x. As for it being dimensionless, there is nothing
strange about it. Again, scales that go from 0 to 1 are usually
dimensionless, and they are obtained starting from a dimensional
scale with a maximum value and dividing throughout by that value.

In any case, I don't really care whether {ni} has the number
meaning or the xokau-meaning. I don't use it either way.

>>Also, you can look at the next section about {jei} where exactly
>>the same issue resurfaces with examples 6.1 and 6.3.
 >
>I think we discussed this one rather recently.

Yes we did. If I remember correctly, 6.3 was sumti raising
in your opinion, whereas others favoured the definition
where jei was the indirect question and thus 6.3 was ok
for them. Again, I don't care either way. I don't need {jei}.

 >>    le nu ko'a sutra le nu broda cu cenba [le ka ce'u klani li xokau]
>>    Koha's speed at brodaing varies [in how much it is].
>
>That first sumti is discussing the event of ko'a being fast, and not the
>measureable property of that event, which is the speed of le nu broda
>taking place All you have said is that this event of ko'a being fast
>has varied in some specific property of being associated with a number that
>has some value.

Exactly, yes.

>What numerical property of the event that is varying is not
>in any way made clear and indeed it could be any numerical property.

Of course!

 >>Of course, if broda was more specific we could be more
>>specific about le se cenba. For example if broda was
>>travelling by car, le se cenba could be kilometers per hour.
 >
>Yes, but the event of John being fast at travelling by car can vary in the
>number of times John stops for gas. Another number unrelated to speed that
>is a variation in the event of John being fast.  Isee no way that this
>interpretation is excluded by your ce'u klani format.

It isn't excluded. Why would we want it to be excluded, if it is
worded in an almost maximally general way? Is it excluded
using {ni}?

>>    ko'a cenba le ka ce'u sutra le nu broda kei sela'u li xokau
>>    Koha varies in the extent to which it is fast at brodaing.
 >>    le nu broda cu cenba le ka ko'a sutra ce'u kei sela'u xokau
>>    The brodaing varies in the extent to which koha is fast at it.
>
>I dunno - the latter in particular seems to suggest acceleration to me more
>that speed.

Any change in speed is an acceleration.

>>(1)        le birka be la djan cu klani li pa le ka mitre
>>             John's arm is 1 in meters.
>
>But there is no disambiguation present to indicate what about John's arm
>is 1 in meterness even if this were an acceptable use of klani.

You're right about that of course, but it is not a problem particular
to this sentence. Infinite precision requires infinite verbosity and all
that. But disambiguation is perfectly possible:

        le birka be la djan cu klani li pa le ka mitre fi le clarai
        John's arm is 1 in meters in the longest dimension.

        le birka be la djan cu klani li pa le ka mitre fi le clarai remoi
         John's arm is 1 in meters in the second longest dimension.

        le birka be la djan cu klani li pa le ka mitre fi le toryrai
         John's arm is 1 in meters in the shortest dimension.

 >>(2)    lei va plise cu klani li mu le ka mi kancu
>>         Those apples there are 5 by my reckoning.
>
>Those apples are a quantity?

Right.

>>(3)    le gugde cu klani li ciciki'oki'o le ka namcu pe lei xabju
>>         The country is 33,000,000 in number of inhabitants.
 >
>There are a lot of numbers associated with said inhabitants, the count of
which
>is only one - see the Statistical Abstract ofthe US for 1000 pages of
numbers
>measuiring the inhabitants of the US in a variety of ways.

Is that an objection or just a comment? Of course I agree. There are
of course ways to be more precise. I could have used a predicate like
"x1 is the number of members of x2" if there was an obvious one.
I didn't use {kancu} because last time I used it you objected that
it required someone doing the counting.

 >>I don't know. I didn't invent {ni}, nor do I have much use for it.
>
>Well you are trying to pretend it isn't needed, but when you are not
>careful, no one knows what you are measuring.

Could you explain what you mean by that? I am not pretending
that I don't need it. If you just read what I write in Lojban you would
see that I really don't use it.

 >>    i mi do prami sela'u li piso'i
 >>    I love you in quantity a lot.
>
>Vague as the relationship of the quantity with the predicate.

Of course it's vague! Is the English version less vague?
Is the version with {ni} less vague? What is your better translation?

 >>A scale is a two place relationship
>>between the thing being measured and the resulting measurement.
>
>But your examples except possibly for the one involving kancu, do not say
>what about the thing being measured, is being measured.

The thing itself is being measured. Different scales give different
numbers for it. For example, for a given ko'a, we might have:

        ko'a mitre li pano
        Koha is in meters 10 (in the obvious direction).

        ko'a snidu li so'i
        Koha is in seconds many.

        ko'a klani li mu le ka mi kancu
        Koha is in quantity 5 in what I count it to be.

        ko'a klani li mu le ka cmina'u
        Ko'a is in quantity 5 in number of members.

>There is no indication
>of whatthe units might be.

The scale necessarily provides the units.

co'o mi'e xorxes