Martin Bays, On 19/10/2011 05:30:
* Wednesday, 2011-10-19 at 03:56 +0100 - And Rosta<and.rosta@gmail.com>:Is there consensus on what fractional quantifiers should mean?Not to my knowledge.I find it hard to think of an valid argument for piro being distinct from ro.There seems to be at least some consensus that {ro} is a singular quantifier. {piPA} has tended to be used for other things. If {pi za'u} is to be a plural existential quantifier, which it would be very useful for it to be, then it seems we're obliged to have {pi ro ko'a} == {ko'a} (just a null-op), and have {pi ro broda} being, for distributive broda, the plurality formed from the extension of broda. For non-distributive broda, it's less clear.
Ah, I see. So for "pi mu plise" there are three candidate meanings: "half an apple" (Pierre's), "half of appledom" (my stab at glossing yours), and "one in every two apples" (what I had vaguely thought it meant before this conversation).
So maybe {loi} should actually be defined like that. {loi cinfo} means precisely the same thing as "the lions".I think "the lions" would mean {lei cinfo}, actually, but that's a point about English, and doesn't contradict your underlying point.Just making a veridiciality distinction? Or specificity too?I don't know how sclerotic my thinking is, but I'm thinking "the lions" is {lo co'e voi cinfo} (or maybe also your {loi co'e voi cinfo}) and "le broda" is "lo co'e voi broda" (and "lei broda" "lei co'e voi broda").So just adding non-veridiciality?
adding nonveridicality with voi, and specificity with co'e. --And. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.