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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Michael Turniansky
<mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
>   This brings up a question that I've always wondered about lojban, although
> this is possibly tangential to this main thread, so I apologize.

This thread has already tangented off in all sorts of different
directions, so there's no need to apologize.

> I've
> always been worried about the glosses of so'a, so'e.  If I want to say I
> want to say, aboriginal-like, that  I have a vague but large amount of
> spears, how do I do it? "mi ponse so'i kilga'axa'i" But if I want to specify
> an even larger, although still vague, amount, I can't go to so'e and so'a
> because they imply (at least in their English glosses) that they are only a
> relationship to some defined amount (the totality of spears in our universe
> of discourse).

Yes, "so'i sai" and "so'i cai" are better for that.

> How is it that the scale seems to shift from quantities
> (few, some, many) to percentages (most, almost all)?  Is this just a problem
> with the English gloss?  Can they mean either, depending on whther they are
> inside or outside the gadri?

I think "so'e" and "so'a" must always be less than "ro", while "so'i",
"so'o" and "so'u" are compatible with "ro". If the intention was that
"so'e" and "so'a" also be compatible with "ro" then the choice of
keywords was very unfortunate. There's no way that "almost all" and
"all" can be the same number.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
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.