[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: Erik Rauch <erikr@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>*Subject*: Re: comments on the batch of lujvo etc. psoted thus far*From*: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>*Date*: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 17:29:56 EDT*Reply-To*: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU*Sender*: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>

lojbab: > Are you aware that "no'e" is not best translated as "non" - that is "na'e". > "no'e" is neutral on the scale, neither really yes or no, or borderline, > and that is what I see as the essence of whole numbers wrt rationals. > Yeah they can be treated as rational numbers, but they aren't linguistically > what we think of when someone says "fractions". They are on the other hand > NOT "non-fractions, but rather neutral on the fraction vs. non-fraction > scale. > Yes, I was thinking of na'e, sorry. With a (hopefully) clearer picture, I now think: {na'e frinu} means irrational. {no'e frinu} does not mean integer. Integers are not neutral on the fraction vs. non-fraction scale, since they are a special class of fractions. And a special class that goes in the other direction from the irrationals. In a sence, integers are further away from {na'e frinu} than {frinu} are, so they can hardly be at the neutral point. Integers are {frinu}, even if they may be considered as "not really fractions" in other languages. Unless {frinu} is not a mathematical concept, and by it's definition it seems to be, then {no'e frinu} to me is meaningless. Does {ko'a broda gi'e no'e broda} make sense for any broda? BTW, I just saw that a gismu for derivative already exists: parbi (or maybe cenba parbi). co'o mi'e xorxes.

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Written Conlang** - Next by Date:
**'w' sound** - Prev by thread:
**Re: comments on the batch of lujvo etc. psoted thus far** - Next by thread:
**Re: comments on the batch of lujvo etc. psoted thus far** - Index(es):