search

CvGC / dict

9 stars 1 forks source link

fatri #42

Open solpahi opened 7 years ago

solpahi commented 7 years ago

gimste definition: x1 is distributed/allotted/allocated/shared among x2 with shares/portions x3; (x2/x3 fa'u).

This word is logically awkward. Often one would want to put a quantifier in the x3, but then the scope is wrong. Also, I don't think being forced to use fa'u is good.

Let's say there's a cake that is shared among you and I (two people), each of which gets one half. How could this be expressed? Some options:

1) lo kenka cu fatri mi'o lo xadba 2) lo kenka cu fatri do fa'u mi lo xadba fa'u lo xadba 3) lo kenka cu fatri mi'o lo ka cpacu pa xadba 4) something else?

So, all of these are problematic. 1) has the general lo issues, though it feels somewhat natural. 2) is more precise, but the pattern quickly becomes cumbersome as the number of participants increases. 3) tries to solve the scope problem with an abstraction. I'm guessing the property is applied to each menre lo se fatri, and then maybe there is a second ce'u hidden in xadba2. Okay. Whether or not this is the best solution, it has something that 1) and 2) do not have: it actually allows one to specify what about the cake is shared. This reveals some hidden sumti raising in the normal definition, because who knows what the relationship between each part of the cake and the people is! Maybe everyone gets to take a piece, but that is by far not the only thing that could meaningfully be allotted to someone. Maybe everyone gets to put their favorite topping on their share, but the cake is for someone else. A shared flat is not taken and eaten by its inhabitants. It's not about ownership either. People can sit on a bench that belongs to someone else and share the space on it among them; again, a different relationship. Or allotting time to different activities or people - these are all different relationships, and it would probably be good if we could access them.

So with all that said, what are your thoughts on this word?

Ntsekees commented 7 years ago
  1. lo kenka cu fatri mi'o lo xadba

I assume this is short for {lo kenka cu fatri mi'o lo xadba be vo'a} ({lo kenka cu poi'i ro xadba be ke'a ku noi pagbu ke'a cu se cpacu su'o mi'o} or somesuch), so the x1 would be a cake entity, and x3 would be a plurality of things that are part of x1. Then arises questions such as "what happens when the cardinality of the x2 and x3 are different? For example, {lo kenka cu fatri mi'o lo pa tcereso jo'u pa xadba be vo'a be'o jo'u pa drata xadba}.

  1. lo kenka cu fatri do fa'u mi lo xadba fa'u lo xadba

{fa'u} is a logical connective and cannot guarantee exhaustiveness (using ce'o instead could hovewer). {lo kenka cu fatri do fa'u mi su'o xadba be ri ku fa'u su'o xadba be ri} = {ge lo kenka cu fatri do su'o xadba be ri gi lo kenka cu fatri mi su'o xadba be ri} (if "xadba" was replaced with "spisa", we couldn't be sure there aren't other possible recipients and allotments involved, for example it doesn't exclude {lo kenka ku bi'u nai fatri lo drata prenu su'o spisa poi drata}. Using {ce'o} instead, if desirable, the predicate could claim the sequences are exhaustive while retaining the ability to show who gets what portion. With the {fa'u} definition, I would expand this version of {fatri} as something like {x2 cpacu x3 noi pu lo nu no'a cu pagbu x1}.

  1. lo kenka cu fatri mi'o lo ka cpacu pa xadba

I guess that would simply become {ro mi'o cpacu pa xadba be lo kenka}, ĭe pei. In this case, we'd have something like {fatri} = {ro x2 ckini x1 fi x3}.

mi'e la .ilmen. mu'o