From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Tue May 23 02:32:28 1995
Date:         Mon, 22 May 1995 21:27:23 -0400
From: "Dylan P. Thurston" <dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Quantifiers
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Message-ID: <UmPsrk40e6E.A.1zE.3t0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

jorge@phyast.pitt.edu writes:
 > >  > I intended {le ka xokau ke'a cu nenri le kumfa} to mean "the property
 > >  > of how many of them are in the room". "Them" plays the role of
 > >  > the variable in English, the "how many" part is the usual indirect
 > >  > question.
 > >
 > > I don't like the use of {ka} rather than {ni}--it is an amount rather
 > > than a property, after all.
 >
 > If you can explain to me how to use {ni} consistently, I'll be glad to
 > use it. I never understood it.

Hey, don't ask me.  But it seems to me that you use {ka} wherever {ni}
might be appropriate.  I can't think of an example right now where
either {ka} or {ni} could be used with a semantic difference, so this
may be a perfectly fine usage.

 > ...
 > > I still don't
 > > follow what the {kau} is supposed to be doing here; maybe you could
 > > explain it?
 >
 > I can try to give examples:
 > ...

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.  I would
translate the sentence (under your rules) by

        The women differ from the men in what portion of them are in
                the room.

(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

Don't know exactly how to fix it.  Maybe stick in a {lu'a} before
{ke'a}?  And maybe switch to using sets if you lose the fight with
John.)

 > 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 (unlike {mi klani le ka ke'a dunda da} <==> {mi
dunda da}).  Worse, what does {ko'a} refer to in the following?

        ko'a ka ke'a dunda makau

I don't know how else to translate the sentences you listed above
(except that I might use {ni} instead of {ka} sometimes), but I'd like
to understand the semantic basis better before supporting this proposal.

--Dylan