On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 9:24 AM, guskant
<gusni...@gmail.com> wrote:
For example, we may count {lo rokci} by its spatial detachment from environment, by its weight, by its spatial volume, by its radioactivity etc.
I don't know, that sounds more like "merli" than "kancu". I think "kancu" must always use integers. If "kancu" was so wide open, we could have used "klani" rather than "zilkancu" to define the inner quantifiers.
Even a non-atomist can count {lo rokci} by one-some in some sense: when {lo rokci} is counted by one becquerel, a non-atomist considers that a half of {lo rokci} is also {me lo rokci}, that {lo rokci} is not an individual, and that {lo panono rokci} is still meaningful.
It may be difficult to define what a one-some is without individuals. One way of defining the "PA mei" predicates goes something like this:
Start with "ro'oi da su'o [pa] mei".
Then define "su'o N mei" in terms of "su'o N-1 mei" as
ko'a su'o N mei := su'oi da poi me ko'a ku'o su'oi de poi me ko'a zo'u ge da su'o N-1 mei gi de na me da
And then define "N mei" as:
ko'a N mei := ko'a su'o N mei gi'e nai su'o N+1 mei
I'm not sure if that requires atomicity or not, since all the quantifiers used are plural.
The definition for "lo PA broda" then doesn't require "zilkancu":
lo PA broda := zo'e noi ke'a PA mei gi'e broda