From jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:46:39 2010 From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: mo'e Date: Mon Mar 20 23:45:01 1995 Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Mon Mar 20 23:45:01 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Message-ID: la djan cusku di'e > > > >Is {mo'e li ci} the same as {ci} as a quantifier? > > > > > > Yes! > > > > Ok. In that case, {mo'e lo namcu} is "some number", and {mo'e ci namcu} > > is meaningless, because {mo'e} takes a referent of one number, not several > > referents. > > Not meaningless. It means "three numbers" considered as a number. But then {mo'e lo namcu} is "at least one number" considered as a number, and not just some quantifier! It makes as little sense to quantify something with a quantity of numbers as it does to quantify with a quantity of apples. In other words, {mo'e da} cannot be the non-specific quantifier with the above interpretation of mo'e for apples. Also {mo'e li ci} would be "one number three" and not the quantifier 3. If it is, then there is an inconsistency somewhere. {mo'e} is not treating all sumti in the same way. In some cases the referent of the sumti becomes the dimension of the number, and the number itself is given by the number of referents, while in other cases, the referent becomes the number. {mo'e pa namcu} is the dimensioned number one "one number". Then how can {mo'e li ci} be 3, instead of "1 three"? la lojbab cusku di'e > I am not sure that we have defined an outer quantifier for "li". In any > event, rules of mathematics are what matter. "mo'e" is the inverse of > "li" so "mo'e li ci" is defined as "ci", and ci+ci = xa, not "re li ci" > at least in normal mathematics (my son is at the stage of "1+1 = 11" for > jokes too, and that is the way I would read your argument for "re li ci". I don't want to make an argument for {re li ci}. I am only saying what follows from the example with the apples. You are treating {mo'e} differently when the following sumti is of the {li} variety and when it is not, and so there is no way of knowing what {mo'e da} means, because depending from where you approach it you get a different answer. > mo'e pa plise is a 'number', a dimensioned number as Cowan mentioned, but > a number nonetheless. "mo'eda" is also a number. Dimensioned or not? > My usage may have been > sloppy, and it may turn out that what I really needed was a "la'emo'eda" to > get the value of the dimensioned "da", and I might even need to put in an > explicit "pada" so that Jorge cannot twist my words into something I did > not intend. {la'e mo'e da} is not grammatical. I don't want to twist your words, I want to understand what {mo'e da} means. Which of the two meanings of {mo'e} should I use? > SSo does la'emo'epada poi namcu work? No, but {mo'e da poi namcu} by itself works. The problem is not in how to write it but how to interpret it. If I compare it with {mo'e li ci}={ci} I get one answer (the useful one, in my opinion). If I compare it with {mo'e ci plise} = the number "three apples", then I get a different answer, inconsistent with the first one. > We are converting non-mathematical 'objects' into mathematical ones. Right. Many objects to a single mathematical object, to be more precise. That is in the case of the apples. In the case of {mo'e li ci} you are not doing that. You don't take the number of referents that {li ci} has and use that as the number, and then use the description as the dimension. Here you do something else. > Operations > on mathematical objects are fairly well defined for any given mathematics. > The conversion of a non-mathematical object into a mathematical one is going > to likely be a matter of convention for many cases. We can figure out > what do to with outer quantified descriptions, and with "li+quantifier". Inconsistently with each other, that's all I'm saying. Which means that {mo'e da} is not well defined. Jorge