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

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@v21.me.uk>]

xorxes:
> --- And:
> > 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".
> 
> Right, you wouldn't admit fractions of broda at all, just fractions
> of numbers of broda.
> 
> But it is very hard to not interpret {pa pi mu lo plise} as
> one and a half apples.

Good point. The same goes for {ci fi'u re lo plise}, which is either
one and a half apples or gobbledygook.

Anyway, the half-an-apple reading has some strange consequences:

pi mu (lo) plise cu se citka 
= pi mu da poi plise cu se citka
= pi mu da ge plise gi se citka  
= "Half something is an apple and is eaten"

Now *that* looks like gobbledygook!

Likewise, if {mi citka pi mu plise}, is the cardinality of {lo'i se citka
plise} 0.5? Hardly.

--And.