From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Tue May 30 23:59:40 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3177 ; Tue, 30 May 95 23:59:34 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Tue, 30 May 95 01:28:35 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa20652; 30 May 95 2:27 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5528; Mon, 29 May 95 21:25:50 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2388; Mon, 29 May 1995 21:25:51 -0400 Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 21:30:27 EDT Reply-To: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Subject: Re: quantifiers on sumti - late response X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9505300227.aa20652@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R la dilyn cusku di'e > I was going to suggest that I put in an inner quantifier {su'o} to > explicitly say that I'm not talking about _all_ the men I have in > mind, but I checked and the inner quantifier of {lei} is already > {su'o}. Doesn't this mean that {lei gunka} can be some piece of the > workers I have in mind? Maybe it would make more sense for the inner > quantifier of {gunka} to be {ro}. The inner and outer quantifiers have very different functions. You are taking the inner quantifier as if it was selecting from some total, but it is not. The inner quantifier is the total. If the inner quantifier is {su'o}, that only says that the total is at least one. lei su'o gunka The whole mass of all the workers (at least one) that I have in mind. The inner quantifier does not select from the number of workers you have in mind. It is that number. Jorge