From jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:45:18 2010 Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 17:06:14 EDT From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: quantifiers on sumti - late response To: Bob LeChevalier X-From-Space-Date: X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Message-ID: And: > > > I think the default should actually be an implicit {loe}, the "myopic > > > singularizer". > > I like it! Both the suggestion and the description. (In practice, that > > doesn't differ much from saying that it's the mass.) > There are differences between masses and myopic singulars, as I'm > sure you're aware. I'm aware there are differences, I'm not sure that I know exactly what they are. > {ci da stedu loe prenu} is probably false (or at > least conceptually really weird), Yes, but for the opposite reason that you think, I think. There are in fact many more than 3 human heads. (I prefer to talk about {stedu be lo'e remna} rather than {be lo'e prenu}. I don't think the number of heads is very relevant or easy to determine for general {prenu}.) {ta stedu lo'e remna} has to mean "that's a human head". Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense to relate anything concrete with {lo'e remna}, and that would be a shame. Just like {mi prami lo'e remna}, "I love humans", is mainly a statement about {mi}, {ta stedu lo'e remna} has to be a statement about {ta}. Can't we think of a human head without there being a particular human to which it belongs? If not, then change the example to {ta tanxe lo'e plise}, surely we can think of a box for apples that is not a box for any particular apple. (In fact, I'm tempted to write {ta tanxe reno lo'e plise} for "that's a box for twenty apples", i.e. a twenty-apple box, not necessarily for any particular twenty apples.) If you want to claim that only {pa da stedu lo'e remna}, then that {pa da} has to be a {lo'e} type object as well, and only {lo'e} objects could be in relationship with {lo'e} objects, which would limit its usefulness enormously. > and {ci da stedu lee prenu} is probably > false too, if we're referring to a person, But {le'e prenu} doesn't refer to any person, only to the particular idea of person that you have in mind. > while {ci da stedu loi prenu} > can be true, if the person mass contains three people. No doubt. Exactly three things are heads of some fraction of the mass of all persons. > > > Since there is no point in using quantifiers with > > > loe, that would leave {re do} unambiguously meaning "two of you". > > Yes. Can you accept {mi nitcu re lo'e tanxe} on the same grounds? > > i.e. "I need two of Mr Box"? > > Well, I accept it as much as I accept {re loi tanxe} or {re la xorxes > jambias}. But that's different. {loi tanxe} and {la xorxes} have not been myopically singularized, they are singular on their own right. If you don't have a problem with {re do} for "two of you", (understanding {do} in the m.s. sense,) then there shouldn't be a problem with {re lo'e tanxe} either. > > > Ah. {lo broda} is {lo suo broda} and {lohi broda} is {lohi ro broda}? > > No, {lo broda} is {lo ro broda} and yes, {lo'i broda} is {lo'i ro broda}. > > Even more explicitly {lo broda} is {su'o lo ro broda} and {lo'i broda} > > is {piro lo'i ro broda}. > > So what is "a set of boxes"? {pisuho lohi tanxe}? I guess so, although that's really a fraction of the set of all boxes. I'm not sure what's the convention about fractions of sets, I suppose subsets is the obvious choice. If you want to be more precise, for example talk about two sets of boxes, you could say {re lu'i lo tanxe} "two sets of at least one box each". {lo'i tanxe} is short for {lu'i ro [lo ro] tanxe} "the set of all boxes". Jorge