From lojbab Mon Dec 5 17:04:57 1994 From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199412052204.AA14218@access2.digex.net> Subject: Re: Some thoughts on Lojban gadri Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 17:04:44 -0500 (EST) Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group) In-Reply-To: <199412022213.AA20261@nfs2.digex.net> from "Jorge Llambias" at Dec 2, 94 03:10:34 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: 1069 Status: RO la xorxes. cusku di'e > la djan cusku di'e > > > The fact that "lei" is +specific doesn't affect what its outside quantifier > > is, since (as I said before), the outside quantifiers of masses aren't > > true logical quantifiers: the true quantifier in the sense of predicate > > logic is always "pa". The apparent quantifier is really a fractionator: > > we massify some number of components, determined by the inside quantifier > > (really a set cardinal, as pc says), get some fraction of it, specific or > > non-specific as the gadri tells us, and then use that as a singular term. > > I think the fractionator is nonspecific unless it is piro. If you are > referring to a specific fraction, then {le pisu'o} will do the job. > Otherwise, how do you refer to a nonspecific fraction of an in-mind > specific mass? You are right and I was wrong. "lei" is -specific, unless an explicit "piro" appears. However, the stuff inside the "lei" is +implicitly_restricted. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.