From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Thu Dec 15 19:19:59 1994 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA21882 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Thu, 15 Dec 1994 19:19:53 -0500 Message-Id: <199412160019.AA21882@nfs1.digex.net> Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8442; Thu, 15 Dec 94 19:19:44 EST Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9361; Thu, 15 Dec 1994 14:27:02 -0500 Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 18:55:48 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: fractionators To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu In-Reply-To: (Your message of Thu, 15 Dec 94 11:48:28 EST.) Status: RO John: > > 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%, or 100%, I take it. > the only excluded value is 0%. So although formally the fractionator > is default, in practice it might as well be unspecified. OK. Why, then, do we need fractionators at all? We don't have them with le or lo, do we? "vi viska lo/le prenu" does propel us into long discussions about how much of the person or how much of each of the people I saw. A mass is a singularity: why not treat it like other singulars, e.g. "pa lo"? I don't see why we have to say anything about 'fractionators' at all. --- And