Subject: Re: [lojban] How many?

From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email-masked]>
Date: 1 Sep 2000 21:39:25 -0000

>From: Invent Yourself <[email-masked]>
>Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 17:08:42 -0400 (EDT)
>
>
>On 1 Sep 2000, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>
>> >From: Pierre Abbat <[email-masked]>
>> >Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 14:02:09 -0400
>> >
>> >
>> >If "How old are you" is {do nanca li xo}, would "how many species of fish are
>> >there" be {ta finpe li xo} or {ta finpe xo da}?
>> 
>> No... {ta finpe li xo} means "What number is the fish-species of that
>> thing?" ... or something like that; it doesn't make sense, so it's hard to
>> translate. The x2 place of finpe isn't meant for a number.
>
>Is Lojban a strongly-typed language?

Actually, yes. At least to some extent. That was part of the big hassle
with sumti-raising: some gismu wanted events/abstractions, and not simple
things. There are cases where you need individuals, cases where you need
masses, and cases where you need sets. In fact, the place structure of
{Nmoi} (for some well-defined number N) is:

x1 is a *mass* formed from the *set* x2 of N members, one or more of which
is/are x3.

It actually converts between masses and sets, while supplying a number.
And we have lu'i and lu'o to convert to and between sets and masses also.
There IS typing in Lojban, and numbers are a type. If I saw a large "4" in
the air, it would NOT be correct to say {mi viska li vo}; that's a
use-mention problem. (I'd need {lu'e li vo} or {me'o vo} or some such).

>If we put a number in finpe x2, that number is associated with
>fish-species. How many different ways are there to associate numbers with
>fish-species? If species are numbered according to some scheme, that's one
>way. In general though, numbers count distinct things. Therefore a number
>there should be assumed to be counting distinct species. However to make
>that clear, I can see the sense of using mei.

If you put a number in finpe x2, that number is not *associated* with
fish-species. You are claiming that it IS a fish-species (or more than
one). That's what goes in finpe2: the fish-species, not something
associated with it.

>> The trouble is that {ta} refers to some *particular* thing/s you're
>> indicating in some way, not "all the ones out there."
>> 
>> For "how many fish are there?" Mmm... How about:

That should be "fish-species"

>> lo'i se finpe cu xomei
>ro finpe xomei

There's a tanru there I'm not sure you intended to make; this is a bare
sumti: {all fish-(howmany-somes)}. Every one of the groups of fish of size
(howmany?). You presumably wanted {ro finpe cu xomei}. But that means
"All fish (considered as individuals, I think) are a how-many-some?" It
*might* mean "How many fish are there in the world?" (as my mistyped
translation above says), but I think the {xomei} needs a mass, not
individuals. That would be {loi finpe} or {piro loi finpe}.

Which of course means I blew it above as well; it should be {lo'i se finpe
cu se xomei}, or maybe {loi se finpe cu xomei}---but that latter doesn't
sound right; I keep worrying about the outer quantifier on masses; that
problem doesn't happen with sets, I think.

Simpler still would be just:

xo da se finpe

(or {xo da finpe} for "how many fish are there in the universe?")

~mark