From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Sat Mar 6 22:55:52 2010 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 22 Oct 1992 08:27:09 -0400 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2482; Thu, 22 Oct 92 08:25:23 EDT Received: by UGA (Mailer R2.08 PTF008) id 6774; Thu, 22 Oct 92 08:25:22 EDT Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1992 13:10:55 +0100 Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Subject: Re: TECH vrici X-To: lojban@cuvma.BITNET To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: (Your message of Tue, 20 Oct 92 15:22:00 EDT.) Status: RO X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Thu Oct 22 14:10:55 1992 X-From-Space-Address: @uga.cc.uga.edu:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Message-ID: John says: > su'osu'epa, if it is intended to mean "exactly one", is correct but > pointless; the standard Lojban translation of "exactly one" is simply "pa". > In other words, Lojban quantifiers are exact by default, rather than having > a vague amount of exactness. In particular: a normal goat with four legs > may be said to "have two legs" in English (since four exceeds two), but not > in Lojban. The whole point of "su'o" and "su'e" and (at the other end) > "ji'i" is to make specific the use of imprecise numbers. While I would agree that in English _There are a dozen people here_ means "approximately 12" & in Lojban (if John says so) "exactly 12", I don't think this should extend to _The typical goat has two legs_ - even in English, this does not mean "roughly two legs"; one can say _The typical millipede has two legs_, & this is true, even if _two_ is interpreted as exact. This is not to say that _pa_ shouldn't mean "only one"; I'm just pointing out that John's goat example has nothing to do with imprecision. --- And.