Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]:39719) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RGboT-0002ja-2a; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:28:36 -0700 Received: by wyg24 with SMTP id 24sf3298399wyg.16 for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:28:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=yykC45kW1ZLPSXTv+qVYwp3JqVljZSPx200Cx1+dUFw=; b=odjPIe2WGFG35LdSTkLb6OJFIsG3914f+ZQRL0kUyK/jbye6fjRPUEDOSe8fm8tsie 31Tbg0JzoVzWMOQotxltH3hyTKO9BwmqnWu69Pn6DxbjiQNYOAYb+QU88lTs0dZnzA/L nQYy5x+FVw913f8pIkShJ+ZczZuWi93NBAjeQ= Received: by 10.216.2.69 with SMTP id 47mr2667685wee.4.1319052498498; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:28:18 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.140.38 with SMTP id d38ls8599542wej.1.gmail; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:28:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.173.73 with SMTP id u51mr570107wel.0.1319052497320; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:28:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.173.73 with SMTP id u51mr570106wel.0.1319052497292; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:28:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com (mail-wy0-f174.google.com [74.125.82.174]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v20si3314634wbn.1.2011.10.19.12.28.17 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:28:17 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.174 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.174; Received: by mail-wy0-f174.google.com with SMTP id 36so2109171wyg.19 for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:28:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.138.147 with SMTP id a19mr3064523wbu.23.1319052497098; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:28:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.100] (cpc1-pres4-0-0-cust401.pres.cable.virginmedia.com. [80.193.151.146]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fo7sm11536201wbb.20.2011.10.19.12.28.12 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:28:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E9F24CB.2000901@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 20:28:11 +0100 From: And Rosta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.22) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/3.1.14 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable References: <4E981179.1030805@gmail.com> <20111014225934.GC3111@gonzales> <4E98D899.7080608@gmail.com> <20111015200404.GB3090@gonzales> <4E9A39C9.3010605@gmail.com> <20111016050503.GA21114@gonzales> <20111016171146.GB21114@gonzales> <4E9B7960.5070006@gmail.com> <20111018033124.GA30548@gonzales> <4E9E3C5F.2000606@gmail.com> <20111019043005.GC5069@gonzales> In-Reply-To: <20111019043005.GC5069@gonzales> X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.174 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=and.rosta@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / Martin Bays, On 19/10/2011 05:30: > * Wednesday, 2011-10-19 at 03:56 +0100 - And Rosta: >> Is there consensus on what fractional quantifiers should mean? > > Not to my knowledge. > >> I find it hard to think of an valid argument for piro being distinct from ro. > > There seems to be at least some consensus that {ro} is a singular > quantifier. {piPA} has tended to be used for other things. > > If {pi za'u} is to be a plural existential quantifier, which it would be > very useful for it to be, then it seems we're obliged to have {pi ro > ko'a} == {ko'a} (just a null-op), and have {pi ro broda} being, for > distributive broda, the plurality formed from the extension of broda. > For non-distributive broda, it's less clear. Ah, I see. So for "pi mu plise" there are three candidate meanings: "half an apple" (Pierre's), "half of appledom" (my stab at glossing yours), and "one in every two apples" (what I had vaguely thought it meant before this conversation). >>>>> So maybe {loi} should actually be defined like that. {loi cinfo} means >>>>> precisely the same thing as "the lions". >>>> >>>> I think "the lions" would mean {lei cinfo}, actually, but that's >>>> a point about English, and doesn't contradict your underlying point. >>> >>> Just making a veridiciality distinction? Or specificity too? >> >> I don't know how sclerotic my thinking is, but I'm thinking "the >> lions" is {lo co'e voi cinfo} (or maybe also your {loi co'e voi >> cinfo}) and "le broda" is "lo co'e voi broda" (and "lei broda" "lei >> co'e voi broda"). > > So just adding non-veridiciality? adding nonveridicality with voi, and specificity with co'e. --And. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.