Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0quhFE-00005YC; Tue, 11 Oct 94 15:27 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9843; Tue, 11 Oct 94 15:28:07 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 9839; Tue, 11 Oct 1994 15:28:07 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0677; Tue, 11 Oct 1994 14:25:06 +0100 Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 09:20:02 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: A couple of questions To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu In-Reply-To: <199410072001.AA21315@nfs1.digex.net> from "ucleaar" at Oct 7, 94 07:32:47 pm Content-Length: 1023 Lines: 27 la .and. pupu cusku di'e > > > We might therefore take "lo mlatu je nanmu cu blanu" to mean > > > "more than 0% of catmen are blue", again not implying existence. la xorxes. pu cusku di'e > > But {lo} has an "at least one" quantifier, not "at least some %". > > Otherwise, su'o doesn't work as the negation of ro. la .and. cusku di'e > You're right: such has been the stipulation. But what is the rationale? Actually not. The quantifier for "lo" is "su'o" iff the thing described by "lo" exists; if not, a "su'ono" quantifier is acceptable. > What is the interpretation for uncountable stuff? "At least one water"? In Lojban, "water" is countable: the definition of "djacu" is "x1 is a quantity of water". To speak of "water", non-countable, one needs "lei" (+specific) or "loi" (-specific). All the Lojban equivalents of English mass nouns work this way: "butter", "iron", "silicon", etc. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.