On S= un, Jan 6, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com&= gt; wrote:

Not {su'o}, no. Instead it's more li= ke "at least one, and probably about one." As for the example, tr= ivial examples don't really help (since the issue could basically be le= ft up in the air and trivial cases would still be resolvable in context), w= hile universe-of-discourse-based examples seem pedantic at best.

mi'e la latro'a mu'o

On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 7:49 PM, F= elipe Gon=E7alves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com> wrot= e:

I don't understand what you mean by &quo= t;inexact quantifers". Do you mean that {pa}
should be understood as {su'o}? I don't see why that is necessary, = or why you
would need such a convoluted example to exemplify the different interpretat= ions.

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

On 6 January 2013 15:59, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:
> The issue of quantifier exactness has come up a few times already. The= most
> recent example was "context and precision" which was forked = by aionys from
> another thread. You can look at that thread On IRC today, playing arou= nd
> with functions we stumbled upon a combination of a sentence and situat= ion
> such that one stance on quantifier exactness makes the sentence false = while
> the other makes it true. Here's the setup:
>
> There are 4 people, mi, do, la alis, la bab; the latter two are groupe= d
> under {lo re prenu}.
> I like la alis a little bit, but hate la bab.
> You like la alis and la bab a lot.
> Now consider
> {mi zmadu do lo ni ce'u nelci pa lo re prenu}
> (If the ni confuses you, pretend it's ka, as that part's not i= mportant here.
> We can talk about ka-ni elsewhere.)
>
> If quantifiers are exact, this is true. {do nelci pa lo re prenu} is > completely false (you like two of them, not one), while {mi nelci pa l= o re
> prenu} is true, if only a little bit, so I do exceed you in that aspec= t.
> Note that the CLL says this is how the language works, but if you look= at
> the previous discussions you'll find that this is clumsy fairly fr= equently.
> If quantifiers are not exact, this is false or at least false-ish, sin= ce {ro
> da poi me lo re prenu zo'u do zmadu mi lo ni ce'u nelci da}. >
> I thought this example warranted discussion primarily because it does = not
> arise because of annoying, semi-ontological issues related to the univ= erse
> of discourse. Instead there's only two people being quantified ove= r, but the
> two interpretations still differ with respect to this (relatively simp= le)
> sentence.
>
> .i do ma jinvi
>
> .i mi'e la latro'a mu'o
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro= ups
> "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=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.