From lojban+bncCJzE7b_XFxCk18_yBBoE7C-e2Q@googlegroups.com Tue Aug 23 11:04:35 2011 Received: from mail-gy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QvvKv-0002Qe-Py; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:04:34 -0700 Received: by gyc15 with SMTP id 15sf388052gyc.16 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:04:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:date:from:reply-to:to:message-id:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:precedence :mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=tTD6oqk0SFKR94rbTcFbaM9Sf+SeKEDuhoJF9Qtkdl4=; b=vuEP2w7xd8uRVbRt1clCQ0+0C/HKApwJAWEubZ4wb/n66hsOpi3Lr55LceGslvpWE7 zL9BqeX73qie9QE1Q5TxoPaaDQAjycdpd1Dd65MbLNGgS+pXfphuyVG4QSScQUu4pDqi o9S74GELDKgsJbAQBRbEh/27ElEi8aZzUwmI0= Received: by 10.90.206.6 with SMTP id d6mr927003agg.52.1314122660213; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:04:20 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.90.18.23 with SMTP id 23ls29665567agr.4.gmail; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:04:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.91.69.34 with SMTP id w34mr909392agk.11.1314122658546; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:04:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:04:17 -0700 (PDT) From: djandus Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-ID: <15200102.1989.1314122657841.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqcd38> Subject: [lojban] proportions MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: jandew@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: ls.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jandew@gmail.com designates internal as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jandew@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1988_21321055.1314122657840" ------=_Part_1988_21321055.1314122657840 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 So, I just wanted to know, what's the official way to do a few quantifying things right now? How can I translate each of the following into Lojban: 1. You like two of my shoes. 2. You like both of my shoes. 3. You like two of my three shoes. The first one is a bit of confirmation. I would use 1:{do nelci re cutci pe mi}. I have two main concerns between the other two, with so many little questions on the side. For one, is one way to do proportions 3:{do nelci refi'uci lo cutci pe mi}? If so, what about implications of 2/3 of a group of 6 or 9? Is that an issue with {loi}? Can I get rid of lo in the last bit, by {refi'uci lo cutci} == {refi'uci cutci}? Is there an easier way? Are there alternate ways? What's the point of lo's inner quantifier, and can it help with anything like this? (This was demonstrated in "ancient" texts, but not it post-xorlo writings, so what happens now?) And, while I'm at it, does using {loi} here instead of {lo} make any explicit difference past an implication of {do} liking the group distributively? For another, how is (2) different from (3)? I could use the same as 1:{do nelci re cutci pe mi} and it would of course be true, but what are the ways to indicate that that number is for the whole group? I'm imagining you could have 2:{do nelci pa loi re cutci pe mi}, but now I'm back to wondering all of the things from the other concern, like can I use {lo} instead of {loi} and it act the same way quantitatively? If I try to use a proportion, does {pafi'upa} act differently from {refi'ure} in this case? (Note that I don't want it to, but I'm wondering what the state of things right now is.) So, I'm *really* hoping that this doesn't explode into random topics -- I just want to know the best way to translate those three statements, hopefully in a way where all my quantifying qualms will be quenched. (Alliterative apologies, dear audience.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/Tpcoz7Rop0YJ. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. ------=_Part_1988_21321055.1314122657840 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable So, I just wanted to know, what's the official way to do a few quantifying = things right now?

How can I translate each of the follow= ing into Lojban:
1. You like two of my shoes.
2. You like both of my shoes.
3. You like two of my three shoes= .

The first one is a bit of confirmation. I would = use 1:{do nelci re cutci pe mi}.

I have two main c= oncerns between the other two, with so many little questions on the side.

For one, is one way to do proportions 3:{do nelci r= efi'uci lo cutci pe mi}? If so, what about implications of 2/3 of a group o= f 6 or 9? Is that an issue with {loi}? Can I get rid of lo in the last bit,= by {refi'uci lo cutci} =3D=3D {refi'uci cutci}? Is there an easier way? Ar= e there alternate ways? What's the point of lo's inner quantifier, and can = it help with anything like this? (This was demonstrated in "ancient" texts,= but not it post-xorlo writings, so what happens now?) And, while I'm at it= , does using {loi} here instead of {lo} make any explicit difference past a= n implication of {do} liking the group distributively?

=
For another, how is (2) different from (3)? I could use the same as 1:= {do nelci re cutci pe mi} and it would of course be true, but what are the = ways to indicate that that number is for the whole group? I'm imagining you= could have 2:{do nelci pa loi re cutci pe mi}, but now I'm back to wonderi= ng all of the things from the other concern, like can I use {lo} instead of= {loi} and it act the same way quantitatively? If I try to use a proportion= , does {pafi'upa} act differently from {refi'ure} in this case? (Note that = I don't want it to, but I'm wondering what the state of things right now is= .)

So, I'm really hoping that this doe= sn't explode into random topics -- I just want to know the best way to tran= slate those three statements, hopefully in a way where all my quantifying q= ualms will be quenched. (Alliterative apologies, dear audience.)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/Tp= coz7Rop0YJ.
=20 To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
------=_Part_1988_21321055.1314122657840--