WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


BPFK Section: Inexact Numbers

posts: 2388



> Re: BPFK Section: Inexact Numbers
>
> Will this work for fractional quantifiers?
>
> piPA sumti == lo piPA si'e be sumti
>
> When a sumti has a single referent (which may
> be a simple individual, a group, a set, etc.)
> then a fractional quantifier refers to a
> corresponding fraction of the referent. In
> particular, a fraction of a group or a set is a
> subgroup or subset whose cardinality is the
> corresponding fraction of the cardinality of
> the whole.

Yes, this seems the reasonable way to go — most
useful and nearest tradition (I think many peopel
have done it this way even when JCB was
explicitly chopping objects in the set to
pieces.)

>
> When a sumti has more than one referent (e.g.
> le ci plise) then a fractional quantifier
> refers to a fraction of one (which one is not
> specified) of the referents. Then {pimu le ci
> plise} is "half of one of the three apples.

Well, this is still one referent due to Lojban's
plural problem, so why not keep the same pattern
(except now we know what we are taking the
fraction of)? Consistency in the roles of these
various items is a major virtue for me and for
several other people who have voiced opinions.
Partitive is again the most common usage — at
least in English (which in this case gives no
evidence of being peculiar).

> Then more generally we can define:
> piPA sumti == lo piPA si'e be pa me
> sumti
>
> which will also cover the case of a single
> referent.
>
> We may then generalize to things like {repimu
> le ci plise} for "two and a half of the three
> apples".

This looks to be back at the first definition;
why the divergence in the middle? Or have I
missed something about that middle case (or the
one enclosing it)?