la .xorxes. cu cusku di'e
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Dan Rosén <lurifax@gmail.com
<mailto:lurifax@gmail.com>> wrote:
I'm using the expansions suggested in
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section:+gadri, where
lo pa xanto = zo'e noi ke'a xanto gi'e zilkancu li pa lo xanto,
but {lo xanto} can be plural, so this removes the effect of the
zilkancu part. Is it that I misunderstand this equation, or is it
just false?
I don't think it's quite right to say that "lo xanto" can be plural,
because Lojban doesn't have grammatical number, so it can't strictly be
singular or plural. But a natural translation of "lo xanto" in this
context would indeed be plural in English, something like "is 1 counting
in elephants".
If I may, Dan is asking why the unit {lo xanto} cannot be (implicitly) {lo ci xanto}, in which case three elephants would be counted as one counting off by threes. Using a property in zilkancu3 would probably be clearer for that reason. As it stands, some people seem to think that the zilkancu3 unit contains a context-dependent inner quantifier, thus counting of by {xo'e mei}. I don't think that's the intended meaning, so it should be stated clearly that we're dealing with singletons.
mi'e la selpa'i mu'o -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.