Le mardi 25 février 2014 07:59:04 UTC+9, xorxes a écrit :It seems to me that it would be better to use "si'e" rather than "mei" for that purpose, and "pagbu" instead of "me". If you allow things like "so'i da poi me lo pa nanba" you pretty much destroy "me" as "among" and you turn it into "pagbu".When {lo nanba} is non-individual, {so'i da poi me lo pa nanba} is not allowed. non-individual referents cannot be in the domain of {so'i da}, because only individuals are allowed in the domain of singular variables.
If {P si'e} were allowed for P>1, {si'e} would have been better than {me} for non-individual referents.(I have once suggested an interpretation of {P si'e} for other than P<=1, though nobody agreed: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/6LRA8XntyGc/6MFRVIfGDMMJ .)
According to the current definition:x1 number si'e x2 x1 pagbu x2 gi'e klani li number lo se gradu be x2it seems that a number followed by {si'e} cannot be larger than 1 unless {pagbu} is interpreted very broadly so that x1 of {pagbu} can be larger than x2.
Under this condition, if {P si'e} is used for counting up, a number followed by {si'e} should be changed every time another referent becomes to be considered.ko'a pa si'eiko'a fi'u re si'e ije ko'a jo'u ko'e pa si'eiko'a fi'u ci si'e ije ko'a jo'u ko'e jo'u ko'i pa si'e...
Using {ke'a}, our definitions are described as follows:(D1-7) ko'a su'o pa mei(D1) ke'a su'o N mei := su'oi da poi me ke'a ku'o su'oi de poi me ke'a zo'u ge da su'o N-1 mei gi de na me da(D2) ke'a N mei := ke'a su'o N mei gi'e nai su'o N+1 mei(D3) lo PA broda := zo'e noi ke'a PA mei gi'e brodaWhen (D1-7) defines for {ko'a}, the referent of {ko'a} satisfies {su'o pa mei} _non-distributively_.Any other referents that are {me ko'a} do not satisfy {su'o pa mei}.As for (D1-7), speakers who talk about non-individual referents may select not only {ko'a} but also any arbitrary {ko'e} {ko'i}... as {su'o pa mei} as long as the selected referents don't conflict each other.What do you mean by "conflict"? Overlap? Or do you mean that some things are selected as pseudo-atoms, so that, for example:ko'a su'o meiko'e su'o meiko'i goi ko'a jo'u ko'e su'o meiSo ko'a and ko'e are pseudo-atoms, because nothing among them (besides themselves) satisfies "su'o mei", but "ko'i" is not a pseudo-atom, because there are things among them, different from ko'i itself, that do satisfy "su'o mei".Then all and only the pseudo-atoms will satisfy "pa mei", and only things composed of one or more pseudo-atoms will satisfy "su'o mei"..
Yes.
Non-individual referents are excluded from outer quantified sumti and singular bound variables of official Lojban. (If su'oi, ro'oi etc become official, it is not the case, though.) Possibility of quantification on non-individual referents are left only in expressions with inner quantifier. If inner quantifiers are allowed to non-individual referents, speakers who regards {lo nanba} as non-individual consider that a half of {lo pa nanba} is also {me lo nanba}. If inner quantifier is given only to individual(s), the language restrict thought of speakers so that they should consider that "a half of {lo pa nanba} is not {me lo nanba}".