From @uga.cc.uga.edu:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Fri Oct 23 02:47:09 1992 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Fri, 23 Oct 1992 02:47:09 -0400 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9486; Fri, 23 Oct 92 02:45:21 EDT Received: by UGA (Mailer R2.08 PTF008) id 3372; Fri, 23 Oct 92 02:45:20 EDT Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1992 21:10:37 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: ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk X-Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: RO X-Status: Message-ID: cu'u la .and. > 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. I _think_ I agree with this. We appear to be debating the semantics of gismu such as {ponse}. {lo'e kanba cu ponse re tuple} for example. Other superficially similar expressions are obviously wrong. {lo'i tuple be lo'e kanba cu remei} is false. {loni tuple lo'e kanba cu du re} likewise false. {lo'e kanba cu se tuple lu'a lo remei} - not so sure about this one. There _is_ a twosome whose members are legs of the typical goat, e.g. (the set of) its front legs. {lo'e kanba cu se steci re tuple} {lo'e kanba cu ponse re tuple} Whichever of these predicates you prefer is true of any chosen (typical) goat and any two out of its four legs. Does that not make it valid? Iain.