[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[lojban] Re: outer and inner quantifiers on "le"



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)

Of course, if there are 528 men, li piro na du li pimurebi!

phma
-- 
S Fa1>+/- !TM Ng--- M-- K H T-- t? AT++ SY Te- SC- FO- D P !Tz E++ L 
Am I Ha- hc-- FH+++ IP?