Well, assuming 'lo mi cutci' is lost and gone forever (L3) a g= ood old style version would be:
do nelci re lo ro cutci pe mi
do nelc= i re lo re cutci pe mi (could use 'ro' for external)
do nelci re lo ci c= utci pe mi.
It'll be interesting to see what has happened over the years= (L3) For one thing, I suppose, you apparently don't need 'lo' (L3), = though in this case it won't make a difference.
In any case, the proport= ional bit is not only longer but not what you mean to say, since it only gi= ves the proportions but the original gives exact numbers.
best leave 'lo= i' out of it snce it is still contentious (and usually means collectively a= nyhow). 'lo' is officially indeterminate between collective and distributiv= e, so always safe -- except when it is important to be precise and the context doesn't do it.
So far as I can tell, xorlo does not get rid= of internal quantifiers to tell the number of things referred to; 'lo brod= a' just no longer refers to all the broda in the world.

<= div style=3D"font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:= 12pt">

From: djandus <jandew@gmail.com&g= t;
To: lojban@googlegro= ups.com
Sent: Tue, Augu= st 23, 2011 1:04:17 PM
Subject: [lojban] proportions

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 an implication of {do} liking the group distributively?

For another, how is (2) different from (3)? I could use the sam= e as 1:{do nelci re cutci pe mi} and it would of course be true, but what a= re the ways to indicate that that number is for the whole group? I'm imagin= ing 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} ins= tead of {loi} and it act the same way quantitatively? If I try to use a pro= portion, does {pafi'upa} act differently from {refi'ure} in this case? (Not= e 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 t= his 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 audi= ence.)

--
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.
=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/lojba= n?hl=3Den.