=A0 This brings up a question that I've always wo= ndered about lojban, although this is possibly tangential to this main thre= ad, so I apologize.=A0 I've always been worried about the glosses of so= 'a, so'e.=A0 If I want to say I want to say, aboriginal-like, that = =A0I have a vague but large amount of spears, how do I do it? "mi pons= e=A0so'i kilga'axa'i" But if I want to specify an even lar= ger, although still vague, amount, I can't go to so'e and so'a = because they imply (at least in their English glosses)=A0that they are only= a relationship to some defined amount (the totality of spears in our unive= rse of discourse).=A0 How is it that the scale seems to shift from quantiti= es (few, some, many) to percentages=A0(most, almost all)?=A0 Is this just a= problem with the English gloss? =A0Can they mean either, depending on whth= er they are inside or outside the gadri?

=A0=A0=A0=A0 --gejyspa

=A0

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 10:56 AM, John E Cliffor= d <kali9putra@= yahoo.com> wrote:

So the forest-and-trees contrast= is another version of the individuals-and-kinds
contrast, as here set o= ut. =A0Actually, if I understand the (vaguely) standard
terminology, a kinds view would be uncomfortable with individuals at any le= vel,
using "much" rather than "many", for example an= d keeping numeration to a minimum
(story about an Abo being asked how ma= ny spears he had -- 5 visible -- and
replying "Much", then, asked how many have would have if one were= taken away,
replied "Depends on which one". =A0Make of that w= hat you will). =A0So, if {lo cinfo}
means "lionkind", one woul= d expect that quantifiers, other than "much", "more" "little" and the like, would not apply directly. =A0On the other = hand, if {lo
cinfo} is mean to be a mass, one would expect overt determi= ners, "piecee" et
al. =A0Neither is the case, leading one to t= hink (even if not so inclined at the
start) that {lo cinfo} is composed of already individuated items that act i= n
various ways sometimes independently of one another. =A0This isn't= a glory, but it
is indicative, especially in the absence of other compe= lling evidence to the
contrary and in the light of the thingy view being capable of handling most= of
the other stuff in only slighly peculiar ways.

----- Original Message ----
From: Jorge Ll= amb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroup= s.com
Sent: Sat, October 29, 2011 8:55:59 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} = as close-scope existentially quantified plural
variable

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> But = really, it seems that we are literally disagreeing on the meaning of
>= ; {cinfo} - whether it means "is a lion", or "is Lion",= or is ambiguous
> between the two. So wouldn't the most natural and lojbanic solutio= n be
> to decide on one of the two as the meaning of {cinfo}, and hav= e
> a tanru/lujvo ({cinfo pavrolza'i} or {cinfo dacti}, perhaps) = for the
> other?

But wouldn't that just shift the whole discussion fr= om "cinfo" to "dacti"?

~ Another Evolutionary Ta= le ~

One day, Mamma Human was with her two children, Moople and Cles= s, when
they saw Lion in the distance. Moople and Cless had never seen Lion
befo= re and wanted to go and play with him, but Mamma Human told them
Lion wa= s dangerous and they should never go anywhere close to him. The
next day= , while Momma Human was away collecting fruit, Cless saw
something approaching and said "Hey Moople, there's Lion again, le= t's
get out of here! (*)" But Moople laughed and said "No = silly, that's
not Lion. I saw that Lion had a mole on his forehead, = and that one has
no mole. I'm going to play with him." Guess who grew up to havedescendants...

And now in Lojban:

ca lo djedi lo mamta remna= cu kansa lo re panzi be ri be'o no'u la
.mupl. jo'u la .kle= s. .i ca bo viska lo cinfo noi darno .i la .mupl.
jo'u la .kles. no roi pu viska lo cinfo gi'e djica lo nu klama ri g= i'e
kelci .i ku'i lo mamta remna cu jungau ra lo du'u lo cin= fo cu ckape .e
lo du'u .ei no roi klama lo jibni be ri .i ca lo bavl= amdei ca lo nu lo
mamta remna vu crepu lo grute kei la .kles. cu viska da noi ca'o
jbi= bi'o gi'e cusku lu ju'i .mupl. lo cinfo za'u re'u zvati= .i .e'u
mi'o cliva li'u .i ku'i la .mupl. cu cmila gi&#= 39;e cusku lu doi bebna tu
na cinfo .i mi pu viska lo nu lo pilba'a cu jadni lo sedycra be lo
c= info .i tu na se pliba'a .i .ai mi ba klama tu gi'e kelci li'u = .i ko
smadi lo du'u ma kau ma'urbi'o gi'e se panzi ...
(*) I read somewhere that "let's get out of here" is the = most common
line in movies ever, but I suspect it may be just a myth.
mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message becaus= e you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsu= bscribe from this group, send email to
lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/lo= jban?hl=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are su= bscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send e= mail to lojban+uns= ubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.