 Home
 Get A Printable Dictionary
 Search Best Words
 Recent Changes
 How You Can Help
 valsi  All
 valsi  Preferred Only
 natlang  All
 natlang  Preferred Only
 Languages
 XML Export
 user Listing
 Report Bugs
 Utilities
 Status
 Help
 Admin Request
 Create Account

Discussion of "soi'ai"
[parent]
[root]
Comment #1:
how is it different from so'a?

gleki (Sat Aug 25 18:18:25 2018)



Comment #2:
Re: how is it different from so'a?

Curtis W Franks (Sat Aug 25 18:50:20 2018)

gleki wrote: >
"so'a" is a laic/colloquial. It just means "a lot".
But this is a mathematical term/jargon. In this sense, almost all of a dartboard is not the exact bull's eye or on any infinitely thin (mathematically ideal) curve which creates a boundary between regions. The area of the rest of the dartboard is the same as the dartboard as a whole.


Comment #3:
Re: how is it different from so'a?

Curtis W Franks (Sat Aug 25 19:06:09 2018)

krtisfranks wrote: > gleki wrote: > > > > "so'a" is a laic/colloquial. It just means "a lot". > > But this is a mathematical term/jargon. In this sense, almost all of a > dartboard is not the exact bull's eye or on any infinitely thin > (mathematically ideal) curve which creates a boundary between regions. The > area of the rest of the dartboard is the same as the dartboard as a whole.
Almost all real numbers are irrational in this technical sense, but infinitely many real numbers are rational too (and the set of these is even dense in the reals).
Maybe a probabilistic argument can also elucidate the distinction: Colloquially, almost all of the dartboard is not the outer ring of the bull's eye region, and it is not only possible to hit within this ring, but it actually has a nonzero probability of happening. Thus, it is not the case that almost all of the board, in a technical sense, is not this ring. However, for the exact bull's eye (exact center point), while it is technically possible to hit it, there is a 0% chance of doing so because almost all of board (in a technical sense) is not the exact center point.



Comment #4:
Re: how is it different from so'a?

gleki (Sat Aug 25 19:06:52 2018)

krtisfranks wrote: > gleki wrote: > > > > "so'a" is a laic/colloquial. It just means "a lot".
then so'i?
> > But this is a mathematical term/jargon. In this sense, almost all of a > dartboard is not the exact bull's eye or on any infinitely thin > (mathematically ideal) curve which creates a boundary between regions. The > area of the rest of the dartboard is the same as the dartboard as a whole.
related to ga'o then?


Comment #5:
Re: how is it different from so'a?

Curtis W Franks (Sat Aug 25 20:15:15 2018)

gleki wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > gleki wrote: > > > > > > > "so'a" is a laic/colloquial. It just means "a lot". > > then so'i? > > > > > But this is a mathematical term/jargon. In this sense, almost all of a > > dartboard is not the exact bull's eye or on any infinitely thin > > (mathematically ideal) curve which creates a boundary between regions. > The > > area of the rest of the dartboard is the same as the dartboard as a > whole. > > related to ga'o then?
Not too closely, actually. :/





Comment #6:
Re: how is it different from so'a?

Curtis W Franks (Sat Aug 25 20:48:55 2018)

gleki wrote: >
Okay, maybe this will explain it:
"piso'a" does NOT always mean 100%. It means maybe 90%, or 99%, or 99.99999%, depending on context, but it definitely can mean something other than exactly and truly 100%. It can be strictly less than 100% (and is always strictly greater than 0%, probably even strictly greater than 50%, if the whole has enough subparts). I would assume that "so'a" does not contain "ro" and likewise for 'piso'a" and "piro". It is also contextdependent on its value.
"pisoi'ai" always, always, ALWAYS means 100%. There is no context dependency or anything like that. (However, it never refers to the whole of the thing, which is piro. Therefore, it is bounded below by any possible value for piso'a such that the result is not 100% and is bounded above by piro).
Right now, I am okay with piso'a possibly sometimes referring to the same thing as pisoi'ai, depending on context. But there are times when it does/may not. Basically, pisoi'ai is always piso'a in this loose definition which I currently accept, but the inverse is not true. If you want piso'a strictly less than pisoi'ai, then say as much ("piso'a jenai pisoi'ai" or similar). Notice that to say "pisu'esoi'ai" or "su'episoi'ai" (I am not sure that there is a meaningful difference between these two options right now) should mean any fraction of the whole such that it is not the whole (piro), including very small fractions or even 0%. Moreover, "me'ipisoi'ai" or "pime'isoi'ai" (again, I am not sure that these differ from one another) is more or less equivalent to "su'episo'a" or "pisu'eso'a" (likewise), except for the case when "so'a" can or does refer to 100% (so maybe that is a reason for piso'a being always strictly bounded above by pisoi'ai, not that I think about it  so, maybe I will have to say that piso'a is never pisoi'ai and viceversa, afterall, contrary to what I said before). Recall that "100%" in this case is not equivalent to "the whole of".
So, if piso'a of that makes sense to you, then you can analogously understand soi'ai alone by comparing it to so'a, ro, and maybe da'a.


Comment #7:
Re: how is it different from so'a?

Curtis W Franks (Sun Sep 9 02:42:30 2018)

krtisfranks wrote: > gleki wrote: > > > > Okay, maybe this will explain it: > > "piso'a" does NOT always mean 100%. It means maybe 90%, or 99%, or > 99.99999%, depending on context, but it definitely can mean something other > than exactly and truly 100%. It can be strictly less than 100% (and is > always strictly greater than 0%, probably even strictly greater than 50%,
> if the whole has enough subparts). I would assume that "so'a" does not > contain "ro" and likewise for 'piso'a" and "piro". It is also > contextdependent on its value. > > "pisoi'ai" always, always, ALWAYS means 100%. There is no context > dependency or anything like that. (However, it never refers to the whole of > the thing, which is piro. Therefore, it is bounded below by any possible > value for piso'a such that the result is not 100% and is bounded above by > piro). > > Right now, I am okay with piso'a possibly sometimes referring to the same > thing as pisoi'ai, depending on context. But there are times when it > does/may not. Basically, pisoi'ai is always piso'a in this loose definition > which I currently accept, but the inverse is not true. If you want piso'a
> strictly less than pisoi'ai, then say as much ("piso'a jenai pisoi'ai" or
> similar). Notice that to say "pisu'esoi'ai" or "su'episoi'ai" (I am not > sure that there is a meaningful difference between these two options right > now) should mean any fraction of the whole such that it is not the whole > (piro), including very small fractions or even 0%. Moreover, "me'ipisoi'ai" > or "pime'isoi'ai" (again, I am not sure that these differ from one another) > is more or less equivalent to "su'episo'a" or "pisu'eso'a" (likewise), > except for the case when "so'a" can or does refer to 100% (so maybe that is > a reason for piso'a being always strictly bounded above by pisoi'ai, not > that I think about it  so, maybe I will have to say that piso'a is never
> pisoi'ai and viceversa, afterall, contrary to what I said before). Recall > that "100%" in this case is not equivalent to "the whole of". > > So, if piso'a of that makes sense to you, then you can analogously > understand soi'ai alone by comparing it to so'a, ro, and maybe da'a.
One last take:
"piso'a" means "by far most of" or "very, very much/many of".
"pisoi'ai" is far more technical in its definition.





