Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable

["John E. Clifford" <kali9putra@yahoo.com>]

Okay.  I took {lo plise} to be a constant in the context ( as it usually is), but I see how that may not have been clear.

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 20, 2011, at 20:13, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

> * Thursday, 2011-10-20 at 12:32 -0400 - John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
> 
>> Sorry, don"t see how what you say differs from what I say: {pi mu lo
>> plise cu broda} means that a subset of lo plise with half it's
>> cardinality satisfies (in some unspecified -- but hopefully obvious
>> from context  -- way) {broda}.
> 
> Good, that's what I hoped (and expected) you meant.
> 
> My only point was that what you said:
>>>> {pi mu lo plise} is a bunch of apples half the size of {lo plise}.
> could be (mis)interpreted as meaning that {pi mu lo plise} is a constant
> with referent a bunch of apples half the size of the referent of {lo
> plise}, with no quantifier involved.
> 
>> On Oct 19, 2011, at 22:43, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> * Wednesday, 2011-10-19 at 19:15 -0700 - John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
>>> 
>>>> I think that "one of every two" came out as "1/2" or some such.  I am not 
>>>> confident that {pi mu plise} means "half an apple", which might better be 
>>>> something about an apple half.  {pi mu lo plise} is a bunch of apples half the 
>>>> size of {lo plise}.
>>> 
>>> Do you really mean that, rather than having it be a quantifier?
>>> 
>>> i.e. rather than having {pi mu lo plise cu broda} to mean that some
>>> bunch of apples half the size of lo plise satisfies broda?
>>> 
>>> Martin
>>> 
>>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>>> From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
>>>> To: lojban@googlegroups.com
>>>> Sent: Wed, October 19, 2011 2:13:24 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified  plural 
>>>> variable
>>>> 
>>>> Pierre Abbat, On 19/10/2011 05:14:
>>>>> On Tuesday 18 October 2011 22:56:31 And Rosta wrote:
>>>>>> Is there consensus on what fractional quantifiers should mean? I find it
>>>>>> hard to think of an valid argument for piro being distinct from ro.
>>>>> 
>>>>> piro is numerically equal to pa. "piro donri" and "pa donri" mean the same,
>>>>> except for the implied contrast (a whole day, not just a morning; one day,
>>>>> not two or more).
>>>> 
>>>> Ah, so "pi mu plise" is "half an apple" rather than "one in every two apples", 
>>>> then. That must have been settled after my intensive involvement ended. What 
>>>> ended up being the way of doing "one in every two apples"?
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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.

-- 
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.