Re: Quantifiers (was Re: A modest proposal #2: verdicality)

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

la dilyn cusku di'e

> ("Oh! Oh! Oops.  I thought, erroneously and for instance, that {le ri
> panzi} meant the same as {le panzi be [fe] ri}."

In many cases it probably does mean that. This construction was
introduced to mimic the possesive pronouns: "my" -> {le mi}, etc.
In many cases it means that the sumti in question is assumed to be
in the x2: {le mi mamta} = {le mamta pe mi}, which is probably
{le mamta be mi}.

> Could I use {sinxa} instead of {selsmu}?

I would say yes.

> Is there a way to mark the {fe} as optional?
> Perhaps {.einai} or {sei zifre}?)

Not {einai}, that's a comment on what you say, not on what you are
using to say it. I've no idea about {sei zifre}. I would just
say {to fe toi}.


> I wasn't asking about usefulness, but that is a good example that
> hadn't occurred to me.  {le re da} == {le broda voi remei} == {le te
> remei}, right?

Not quite. {le re da} has two individual referents.

{le broda voi remei} has an unspecified number of referents, each of
which is a pair.

> ({le remei} would be a mass, {le se remei} would be a
> set;

My list says {le te remei} is the set. I know this was changed
at some point, so I'm not sure which one is the most up to date.

> {le te remei} gives the same thing as {le re da}, the
> individuated set (anybody have a better term?)

Why not just the individuals? (That's {le se remei} in my list.)

> But I doubt anybody's
> going to remember THAT distinction in practice.)

They better! {le remei} is one or several _pairs_. It is not each of
two individuals.

> Hmm.

The individual vs mass distinction is important in Lojban.
I don't know if it will survive in practice, but in theory
it is at the base of the whole quantification scheme.


>  > > {le ci ninmu} is almost as bad.
>  >
>  > This one is extremely useful. It is the simplest way to say how many
>  > things you are refering to.
>
> But it's not necessary, yes?

What do you mean by "necessary"? In a recent discussion with And, I held
that no cmavo is necessary by itself. The same could be said about any
particular grammar construct.

> Wouldn't {le te cimei ninmu} do almost
> as well?  (Or, in practice, {le cimei ninmu}--a {ninmu} can't be a
> mass or a set, so this isn't really ambiguous.)

You can have a mass {lei ninmu}, it is a mass of women.
I would understand {le ninmu cimei} as {lei ci ninmu}.

{le cimei ninmu} is more ambiguous. It would be "each of the three-some
women". It is more ambiguous than {le ci ninmu}. (It could refer, for
example, to women who are part of a menage-a-trois, not necessarily
the same one, so you could have {le zeboi cimei ninmu} = "Each of the
seven three-some type of women".


> My misunderstanding of the grammar led me to make a mistake; I meant
>       .i lo ci nanmu pe ne'i le kumfa
> which _does_ mean "there are three men in the room", right?

It's just a sumti, but yes, there would have to be three men in the room
for any claim made with it to be true, I suppose.


>  > >       le ni loi nanmu ne'i le kumfa du li ci
>  >
>  > That's a sumti: The amount of some men being equal to three
>  > inside the room.
>
> Sorry, forgot a {cu}: should be
>       le ni rolo nanmu pe ne'i le kumfa cu du li ci

Actually, now it means what I said. Before, it wasn't even a
complete sumti. You need a bridi inside {le ni}, and that
bridi is {loi nanmu pe ne'i le kumfa cu du li ci} = "some of
the men inside the room are equal to the number three".


>  > > or
>  > >       loi nanmu ne'i le kumfa cu cimei
>  >
>  > That makes more sense: Some men are a threesome inside the room.
>  >
>  > (But other men may be doing something else there.)
>
> Does {piro loi nanmu ne'i le kumfa cu cimei} take care of this case?

with {pe} yes, otherwise no. Without {pe}, you are saying that the whole
mass of men is a threesome inside the room. It's either a very large
room, or we are very crowded in there.


>  > > or maybe
>  > >       da noi te cimei nanmu ne'i le kumfa
>  >
>  > That's not a bridi. It's one sumti: Something which is a set-of-three
>  > type of man inside the room.
>
> Damn those {cu}s!  I meant {da noi te cimei cu nanmu ne'i le kumfa}

"At least one thing, which happens to be a member of a threesome, is a man
inside the room."

>  > > Did you know {le mi do se cusku} is ungrammatical?
>  >
>  > Yes. Whatever would you want it to mean?
>
> Well, I thought it meant {le se cusku pe fe mi zi'e pe fi do} -- "that
> which I expressed to you".  But why can't it mean {le se cusku pe mi
> zi'e pe do}?

I'll let the experts answer that one. Why not indeed! (Of course, there
wouldn't be any point in restricting it to two, you could have any number
of sumti there. It sounds too drastic.)


> (There's got to be a technical reason the {zi'e} is necessary, yes?  I
> know {le se cusku pe mi pe do} is grammatical with a different
> meaning, but {le se cusku pe mi ge'u pe do} is not grammatical.)

It is grammatical, but {zi'e} at least saves you from having to use
{ge'u}. It is much easier to mentally parse the sentence with {zi'e}
than with {ge'u}.

[...]
> OK, I see that now.  This does seem to have a few weird consequences,
> viz. {da pe fi de} is grammatical but with little meaning. But I'm
> not going to complain, since (a) I'm sure you've heard it all before

There are grammatical things far more meaningless, but I'll let you
discover them yourself... :)

> and (b) it does have a meaning, just not one you'd ever care to
> express.  (I could imagine using {fo'a pe fi da} if {fo'a} had a
> suitable reference and I wanted to be obscure.)

There's plenty of room to be obscure in Lojban if one wants to.
I've been obscure any number of times, but always unintentionally.

> mu'o mi'e. dilyn.
>
co'o mi'e xorxes