From lee@piclab.com Mon Nov 05 11:10:59 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lee@piclab.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 5 Nov 2001 19:11:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 9719 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2001 19:11:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Nov 2001 19:11:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO piclab.com) (216.121.191.70) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Nov 2001 19:10:58 -0000 Received: from localhost (lcrocker@localhost) by piclab.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12354 for ; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 11:10:42 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: piclab.com: lcrocker owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 11:10:41 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: lcrocker@piclab.com To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Isn't everything a noun? (was Countability) In-Reply-To: <20011102220755.A1955@twcny.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Lee Daniel Crocker > The problem with "The 17 tallest men", once again, is that you don't > want to end up saying that each one is the tallest; quantifiers and sets > aren't the issue. All the reasonable translations I've seen have had > {su'epazemoi} in there somewhere. > > Is {ro le su'epazemoi be lei nanmu bei le ka clani} awkward? Or the > glorkable version, {ro le clani nanmu su'epazemoi}? I assume you mean {mei} rather than {moi}, unless something has changed from the refgram I have. You're right about the sloppy quantification, but even doing it right I think it is clearer to have it be a 17-some of {traji} rather than repeating {nanmu} twice: {ro le xadni clarai be fo nanmu be'o pazemei...} -- Lee Daniel Crocker "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC