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 m0rILmH-00007DC; Thu, 15 Dec 94 21:23 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3405; Thu, 15 Dec 94 21:24:02 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 3403; Thu, 15 Dec 1994 21:24:01 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6094; Thu, 15 Dec 1994 20:20:38 +0100 Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 18:55:48 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: fractionators X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: (Your message of Thu, 15 Dec 94 11:48:28 EST.) Content-Length: 804 Lines: 25 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