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

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

I think that claim is roughly correct. {pi ro lo broda} just comes back to lo 
broda.  Fragments of things are thing fragments (sorry, I can't remember the 
words right now).



----- Original Message ----
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, October 21, 2011 9:56:02 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural 
variable

* Thursday, 2011-10-20 at 23:25 -0400 - Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu>:

> On Thursday 20 October 2011 22:06:58 And Rosta wrote:
> > When I was last up-to-date with developments, nothing was official, but I
> > think I can recall the rudiments of our best efforts at that time to
> > construct a consistent and rational gadri system. As far as I now recall,
> > "half an apple" would be "lo pi mu plise", while "pi mu lo plise" would be
> > the "one in every two apples" one.
> 
> If "pimu lo plise" means "one in every two apples", then "pa lo plise" should 
> mean "every apple".

{pa pi no lo plise} would have to mean "all the apples" (together).

So integers and reals act differently as quantifiers, even when they're
equal as numbers. It's only quite ugly.

-- 
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.