From a.rosta@v21.me.uk Sat Jan 22 16:08:58 2005
Return-Path: <a.rosta@v21.me.uk>
X-Sender: a.rosta@v21.me.uk
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 19250 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2005 00:08:57 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166)
  by m25.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 23 Jan 2005 00:08:57 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO heineken.flexi-surf.co.uk) (62.41.128.20)
  by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Jan 2005 00:08:57 -0000
Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-59-12.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.59.12])
	by heineken.flexi-surf.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id j0MM2JS05375
	for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:02:19 GMT
Message-ID: <002d01c500df$b42a3860$0c3b0751@oemcomputer>
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
References: <20050120152620.GF3649@fysh.org> <20050121190549.GA17449@fysh.org> <003f01c50011$426b4ee0$ab370751@oemcomputer> <200501212115.10146.phma@phma.hn.org>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:47:57 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441
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: 23691

pier:
> On Friday 21 January 2005 18:24, And Rosta wrote:
> > IMO {pi mu lei broda} should be equivalent to {(pa) fi'u re
> > lei broda}, for nonequivalence might seem an insult to mathematics
> > (though admittedly the existence of the mathematically suspect
> > locution "pi ro" might imply nonequivalence -- but I would rather
> > abolish "pi ro" as incoherent). But also IMO, {pa lei broda} would
> > best be seen as an abbreviation of {pa fi'u ro lei broda}, "one out
> > of all the broda". So it would follow that {pa fi'u re lei pa no no
> > broda} should mean "one out of every two of the hundred broda", and
> > then so should "pi mu lei pa no no broda".
> 
> I think {piro} is equal to {pa} when used as a quantifier. The emphasis, 
> though, is different:
> piro lo nanmu = a whole man (as opposed to part of a man)
> pa lo nanmu = a single man (as opposed to several men)
> piro lei nanmu = all the men (not just some of them)
> pa lei nanmu = the men, counted once (this phrase doesn't translate well)

If {pi ro} is meaningful then that does seem a reasonable interpretation.
{pi ro} is certainly hallowed both by usage and by CLL, but strictly
speaking it is idiomatic, for I don't see how it's meaning can be
derived from that of pi and that of ro. It's questionable whether
lojban countances idioms, and it might therefore happen that the
BPFK decide that "pi ro" was a 'mistake'.

--And.