From dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:44:59 2010 Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 22:39:20 -0400 From: "Dylan P. Thurston" Subject: Re: Quantifiers To: Bob LeChevalier X-From-Space-Date: Wed May 24 01:43:48 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Message-ID: mi cusku di'e > > OK, I see what you're trying to do here, although one bothers me slightly: > > > > > lei ninmu cu frica lei nanmu le ka xokau ke'a cu nenri le kumfa. > > > The women differ from the men in how many of them are in the room. > > > (how many = xokau; them = ke'a) > > > > By the rules for {ke'a} as I understand them, here it's a placeholder > > for either {lei ninmu} or {lei nanmu}--in any case, a mass. ... > > (The same thing happens in your original sentence: > > le se klani be lei nanmu bei lo ckilu be le ka xokau ke'a > > cu nenri le kumfa cu du li ci la xorxes. cusku di'e > Well, here it is not so clear, since ke'a doesn't really tie in with > {lei nanmu}. It's just "a scale to measure the property of how many > ---- are in the room". {xokau} can mean both how many, or what > fraction, so it is a bit ambiguous. Right, "a scale to measure the property of how many --- are in the room" is a good translation of {lo ckilu be le ka xokau ke'a cu nenri le kumfa}. But then you proceed to put masses of men on that scale. (This is an awfully pedantic point, admittedly.) ... > > And maybe switch to using sets if you lose the fight with > > John.) > > Never! :) It seems that sets might be slightly more appropriate, even given that John's going to lose :-), since you're not actually using any of the emergent properties of the mass. > > > I think this is all consistent, and I don't see how {ni} could fit in > > > there. > > > > Hmm. I'm still somewhat uncomfortable. The {kau} in the examples > > above served as a placeholder for the point of comparison (i.e., in > > which way they differed). I can't imagine what a sumti like {mi klani > > le ka ke'a dunda makau} would mean > > If you mena {mi ckaji le ka ke'a dunda makau}, that would be "I am > characterized by what I give/ what I give is characteristic of mi". > With {klani}, I have no idea. Yes, I meant {ckaji}. But it seems like you may be using a different meaning of "characterize" than the one intended by the gismu list writers, one more appropriate to {steci}. What do you think the English sentence means? Is it the same as "what I give is particular to me"? (I wouldn't necessarily require that uses of {ka} with and without {kau} appear in the same locations; as I pointed out, it doesn't happen with {du'u} in the first place of {facki}. Just something to think about.) My vague uneasiness still persists. Your examples are very good, but I'd really like an _explanation_ of what's going on and what, exactly, the function of {kau} as you use it is. (I'd like to see this for {du'u}, too, but no one's lobbying for change there.) Alternatively, a gloss would do it. But any alternate way to say the sentences you mentioned, I suppose I'll just go ahead and use this syntax in the (somewhat unlikely) event I need to. mu'o mi'e. dilyn.