From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Sat May 20 17:37:09 1995
Date:         Sat, 20 May 1995 17:36:54 -0400
From: "Dylan P. Thurston" <dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Quantifiers
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Message-ID: <ASFBlI6skZN.A.4nE.qt0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

jorge@phyast.pitt.edu writes:
 > la dilyn cusku di'e
 > > Hmm.  Would
 > >         le ni ke'a nanmu ne'i le kumfa kei be le namcu cu du ci
 > > be the panstakingly precise version?  (I'm using the currently floating
 > > proposal for the use of {ke'a} here.)
 >
 > I don't think you can get any precise version using {ni}. The x2 of {ni}
 > is a scale, I don't understand how a number can be a scale, but then
 > I've no idea how to fill that place either. I'm also not sure I understand
 > {ke'a} there. ({ci} should be {li ci}, {ci} by itself is not a sumti.)
 >
 > The painlessly precise version is {ci nanmu cu nenri le kumfa}, why
 > do you want a painstakingly precise one?

Yes, yes, that's the best way to say it, no argument there.  But I'd
like to understand the quantifiers system better, and this is a handy
way to do it.  (And I could certainly imagine wanting to refer to "the
number of men in the room.")

 > Maybe you could say:
 >
 >         le namcu pe lei nanmu pe ne'i le kumfa cu du li ci

I think I'd prefer
        le se klani be lo'i nanmu pe ne'i le kumfa cu du li ci

but I have no idea what would go in the x3 of {klani} if {le namcu}
doesn't work.  (Maybe it should be {le si'o nanmcu}?)

--Dylan