krtisfranks wrote: > I think that there really are two words here. > > The first is "cardinality", which we already have. It is simple "x1 is the > number of elements in/cardinality of set x2". This uses on kancu2 and > kancu3 (antirespectively). This requires no counter (person doing the > counting) and is independent of the method used to count. > > The second word is something along the lines of "enumerate", "tabulate", > "tally", or "count up". This is a task performed by someone (a counter) and > depends on the method. I personally think that it would be fine to > straight-up delete kancu3 for this purpose, but perhaps we should just > retool it (I am not sure how, though). Instead of trying to figure out the > cardinality of a set (kancu2), it would just be producing a running tally
> of objects/divisions/units (kancu2'). In this way, it is not actually tied > to the grand total, only what has thus far been counted. This word would be > useful for estimation of the size of an army, counting coins or money > values from a purse (counting by units), or counting down in units of time > (kancu2' would just be something like "loi snidu"). In this word a new > terbri could be introduced which designates the first value from which the > counting starts; in counting down time, this would commonly be something > like "ten [seconds]". (Aside: counting down would involve li ni'u (pa) in
> the units terbri.) Notice that the counter is not actually counting how > many seconds are remaining; they are starting with that knowledge and then > enumerating them in reverse order as they pass (within approximation - the > counted seconds are not perfect, nor is the original t-minus-ten mark).
I run into this problem frequently and it basically makes the word, as presently defined, useless. It cannot be used for either of these meanings because it has the other meaning inappropriately but unavoidably wrapped up in it.
|