From lojbab Thu Dec 15 11:48:38 1994 Received: from access2.digex.net by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA24293 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Thu, 15 Dec 1994 11:48:34 -0500 Received: by access2.digex.net id AA21090 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for lojbab); Thu, 15 Dec 1994 11:48:29 -0500 From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199412151648.AA21090@access2.digex.net> Subject: Re: fractionators To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 11:48:28 -0500 (EST) Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group) In-Reply-To: <199412142254.AA04357@nfs2.digex.net> from "ucleaar" at Dec 14, 94 08:08:27 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24beta] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 663 Status: RO > Why do we need default fractionators for (a) lei, & (b) loi? > Can we not make them unspecified, rather than default? "pisu'o" is about as close to an unspecified value as you can get: "some part, more than none, of the whole". It could mean 1% or 99%, the only excluded value is 0%. So although formally the fractionator is default, in practice it might as well be unspecified. The same is true of the "ro" inner quantifier (really cardinal number) in the lo-series; it really means "unspecified". The number of elements in the set is, well, the all of them. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.