Re: <xoi> and fuzzy stuff

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

la stivn cusku di'e

> >> ti pafi'uci xoi barda ka clani le cnano
> >
> >        ti pafi'uci xoi barda le ka clani kei le cnano
>
> use of ka and kei seems like overkill here. How would you translate my
> version?

Your version parses as:

        ti {barda [ka (clani <le cnano>)]}
        This is a big property of being long in the normal property.

You are saying that {ti} is a big property, not something big in some
property, that's why you need {le}, so that {le ka clani} is a sumti,
and not part of a tanru {barda ka clani}. You have {le cnano} as the
x2 of clani and not as the x3 of barda, where you want it, that's
why you need {kei}, to close the {ka} and not let it absorb {le cnano}
as an internal sumti. With those additions, the parse is:

        <ti> barda <le ka clani kei> <le cnano>

where <ti>, <le ka clani kei> and <le cnano> are the three arguments
of barda.

You can't say {le clani} instead of {le ka clani kei}. {le clani} is
"the long one" (i.e. something long) while {le ka clani kei} is
"the property of being long", a property, not an object that you can
touch like {le clani}.

> The meaning of <xoi> is yet to be defined, and is in a nebulous unformed
> but forming state at this point.

The meaning proposed by And was clear. I thought you were using the
same one.

> I hope I have made clear what I want to
> achieve. Any ideas how we can get there?

I think that what you want is {klani}:

        la xorxes cu klani li pafi'uci le mi'o kamclani ckilu
        Jorge is 1/3 on our longness scale.

You can define {le mi'o kamclani ckilu}, "our longness scale", to your
heart's content before saying that (and make it as fuzzy as you wish).
If you want, you can even define a convention by which giving a set of
two numbers gives you a scale, so that instead of saying "our scale"
you would say {la'e li paxano ce li renono}, something like:

        la xorxes cu klani li pafi'uci la'e li paxano ce li renono
        Jorge is 1/3 on the scale given by the set {160, 200}.

But there is no general way of getting a ready-made scale from two
numbers. There are infinitely many possibilities of what they could
mean. If you think that the linear one that you described is the best
one, then you can use it, and others will follow if they like it.

Jorge