From a.rosta@v21.me.uk Mon Jan 24 11:51:02 2005
Return-Path: <a.rosta@v21.me.uk>
X-Sender: a.rosta@v21.me.uk
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 19539 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2005 19:51:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218)
  by m21.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 Jan 2005 19:51:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO heineken.flexi-surf.co.uk) (62.41.128.20)
  by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Jan 2005 19:51:01 -0000
Received: from sonyvaio ([217.140.36.118])
	by heineken.flexi-surf.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id j0OHhHS18752
	for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:43:17 GMT
Message-ID: <000f01c5024d$f97b1e60$76248cd9@sonyvaio>
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
References: <20050123134301.99212.qmail@web41901.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:43:09 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527
X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 62.41.128.20
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@v21.me.uk>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: outer and inner quantifiers on "le"
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=175222075
X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 23707

xorxes:
> --- And:
>> Anyway, the half-an-apple reading has some strange consequences:
>>
>> pi mu (lo) plise cu se citka
>> = pi mu da poi plise cu se citka
>> = pi mu da ge plise gi se citka
>> = "Half something is an apple and is eaten"
>>
>> Now *that* looks like gobbledygook!
>
> Yes, but it is still almost gobbledygook under the other
> interpretation: "one out of every two things is both an apple
> and is eaten".
>
> The move from restricted to unrestricted quantificaton for
> fractional quantifiers, under any interpretation, won't work
> like for regular quantifiers.

True. But partitive fractional quantifiers will not make sense with
any {da}, whereas 'frequency'/'incidence' fractional quantifiers
will at least make sense with restricted da.

>> Likewise, if {mi citka pi mu plise}, is the cardinality of {lo'i se citka
>> plise} 0.5? Hardly.
>
> That doesn't bother me so much, it is a reasonable extension of the
> idea of cardinality.

To my unmathematical mind, cardinalities must be positive integers (or
0); nothing else makes sense.

> It seems to me that any convention we adopt will have its unintuitive
> side, so it's just a question of what is more useful.

In that case, I suppose {pi mu lo'i broda} might serve for "one in every
two broda".

--And.