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 m0rIKZ5-00007DC; Thu, 15 Dec 94 20:06 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0759; Thu, 15 Dec 94 20:06:17 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0756; Thu, 15 Dec 1994 20:05:56 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7339; Thu, 15 Dec 1994 17:48:10 +0100 Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 11:48:28 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: fractionators X-To: Lojban List To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199412142254.AA04357@nfs2.digex.net> from "ucleaar" at Dec 14, 94 08:08:27 pm Content-Length: 688 Lines: 15 > 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.