Re: bits & pieces to Jorge on quantifiers

[jorge@phyast.pitt.edu]

And:
> > > then you may claim that it satisfies the criteria
> > > for being a rorci be lo jbobau.
> > No! Just because we talked about it, and a component of it is a rorci,
> > doesn't in any sense make it a rorci.
> By "you may claim that" I meant not that the mass necesssarily is a
> rorci, but that the claim is sufficiently plausible for it to be worth
> considering.

Ok, it may be worth considering. I would probably decide it is false,
but I admit someone else may decide otherwise. But back to how this
started, I don't thing {lu'a loi rorci be la lojban} can be your sock.
Even if {la lojbab joi le do smoka cu rorci la lojban}, that would only
mean that {lu'a loi rorci be la lojban} can be the mass of Lojbab and
you sock, but not your sock by itself.

> > > I want {lei} to mean "a certain (thing which I describe as a) mass of",
> > > and {loi} to mean "some mass of". Then it's not covered by {loe}.
> > That's what they mean! How come we are arguing? :)
> Hmm. So "all of some mass of broda" is "pi ro pi suo loi broda", and
> "a portion of a certain mass of broda" is "pi suo pi ro lei broda"?

Well, as you say, those are wrong syntactically.

What's the difference between "all of some mass" and just "some mass"?

The other one is just {pisu'o lei broda}, "some part of the mass of broda
I have in mind", or "some fraction of the broda" for short.

> And "two masses of broda" is "re ... pi suo loi broda" and "a certain
> two masses of broda" is "re ... pi ro lei broda"?

Well, those would be {re lu'o lo broda} and {le re lu'o lo broda}.
I don't think you can get them with {loi} and {lei}.

> And "two sets of
> broda" is "re ... pi suo lohi broda" and "a certain two sets of broda"
> is "re ... pi ro lehi broda"?

Rather {re lu'i lo broda} and {le re lu'i lo broda}.

> Those are wrong syntactically, but
> not, I conclude, semantically.

I think I think so.

> > But notice that if {loi tanxe} means "some mass of boxes", then you
> > can't conclude, from knowing that I need some mass of boxes and
> > that there is some mass of boxes in the other room, that the mass
> > of boxes in the other room is the one that I need.
> Good. That's how it should be. And it should contrast with "the mass of
> all boxes", and "all of the mass of all boxes".

Those two are the same, as far as I can tell.

> If I need all of the
> mass of all boxes then I'm trying to corner the box market; the boxage
> in the next room is a portion of what I need. If I need the mass of all
> boxes, then if there's some of that boxage in the next room than it's
> what I need.

That doesn't make sense to me. If you need the mass of all boxes, then
what's in the next room is only part of what you need. Why would you
say that what's in the next room is the mass of all boxes?

Jorge