From @uga.cc.uga.edu:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Wed Oct 21 09:23:54 1992 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 21 Oct 1992 09:23:54 -0400 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5795; Wed, 21 Oct 92 09:22:05 EDT Received: by UGA (Mailer R2.08 PTF008) id 9919; Wed, 21 Oct 92 09:21:39 EDT Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1992 12:41:35 BST Reply-To: I.Alexander.bra0122@oasis.icl.co.uk Sender: Lojban list From: I.Alexander.bra0122@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK Subject: RE: Re: TECH vrici X-To: cowan X-Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: RO X-Status: Message-ID: > 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. My problem with {su'osu'epa} is that it appears to mean "at-least (at-most one)", in other words, any number whatsoever. It is conceivable that there is a convention I haven't come across, which makes it mean "(at-least and at-most) one", but you make that sound unlikely. The other side of this is how to emphasise the exactness when required. {ba'ucu'i} doesn't sound right in this context. Colin's {xa'i} might be pressed into service ({pa xa'i no}), or we could maybe use {sei satci}. Iain.