RE: [jboske] Why ro is importing & nobody should mind

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

Jordan:
> On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 09:03:43PM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > Jordan:
> > > > The ro = 100% argument gives a principled reason why ro should
> > > > be importing 
> > > 
> > > But ro *isn't* 100%, pa is. 100% == 100/100 == 1 
> > 
> > I mean that "ro" = "100% of", not "100%". 
> > 
> > "100% of the men" obviously is not equivalent to "one of the
> > men" 
> 
> True in english, but not in lojban. In lojban, 100% of the men
> is either
> lu'a piro le'i nanmu

= ro lu'a piro le'i nanmu, presumably

> or
> piro lei nanmu
> Which are both "one of the [masses/sets of] men". Or the "whole of" it,
> to phrase it in an english friendly way 
> 
> In lojban you can't say
> piro le nanmu
> unless you mean
> pa le nanmu
> and even then you're probably talking weirdly 
> 
> So,
> ro le nanmu
> is all of the men, and not the same as {piro} of them 

What I meant is that

"100% of men"
= ro lu'a pi ro lo'i nanmu
= ro nanmu

"50% of men"
= ro lu'a pi mu lo'i nanmu

"most men"
= ro lu'a pi so'e lo'i nanmu
= so'e nanmu

--And.