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

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

xorxes:
> --- And:
> > 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!
>
> Yes, but it is still almost gobbledygook under the other
> interpretation: "one out of every two things is both an apple
> and is eaten".
>
> The move from restricted to unrestricted quantificaton for
> fractional quantifiers, under any interpretation, won't work
> like for regular quantifiers.

True. But partitive fractional quantifiers will not make sense with
any {da}, whereas 'frequency'/'incidence' fractional quantifiers
will at least make sense with restricted da.

> > Likewise, if {mi citka pi mu plise}, is the cardinality of {lo'i se citka
> > plise} 0.5? Hardly.
>
> That doesn't bother me so much, it is a reasonable extension of the
> idea of cardinality.

To my unmathematical mind, cardinalities must be positive integers (or
0); nothing else makes sense.

> It seems to me that any convention we adopt will have its unintuitive
> side, so it's just a question of what is more useful.

In that case, I suppose {pi mu lo'i broda} might serve for "one in every
two broda".

--And.