From araizen@newmail.net Sat Feb 26 13:22:49 2000 X-Digest-Num: 376 Message-ID: <44114.376.2082.959273826@eGroups.com> Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 23:22:49 +0200 From: "Adam Raizen" Subject: Re: Translation needed X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 2082 la xorxes cusku di'e > la adam cusku di'e > > >Would there > >be *any* circumstance in which you would use sets, or are le'i, lo'i, > >la'i, ce, etc. just wasted words? > > Just wasted words, in my opinion. There might be rare > circumstances when I might want to talk about sets, but > then I can use a word meaning "x1 is a (mathematical) set > with members x2" or something like that. I find it a waste > to have so many cmavo dedicated to such an abstruse concept. What *is* the word for a mathematical set? The closest I can come up with is "selcmi", but that doesn't require complete specification of the set (and you've also already rejected that zo'o). Consider these two sentences: le'i damba cu daxsi'u lei damba cu daxsi'u In my opinion, the first claims that each member of the group in question hits every other member, while the second only requires that some part of the group hits each other (but that it's presumably significant to mention it of the whole group). If, for example, there are two rival gangs in a brawl, it's obvious that the combatants don't hit members of their own gang, so the "le'i" version isn't correct. I think that the "lei" version expresses the situation well. OTOH, if you want to say that every member of a group performs some action on every other member, using a set is the most clear. Officially, only "le'i" is allowed, but I think that using "lei" opens up interesting and useful distinctions such as this one. i co'o mi'e adam araizen@newmail.net ------------------------------------------------------------- The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. --Robert Heinlein