BPFK Section: Inexact Numbers
wrote:
>
> The proposal gives a set of two apples for
> {pimu le'i vo plise},
> a group of two apples for {pimu lei vo plise},
> half an apple
> for {pimu le vo plise}, and three and a half
> apples
> for {cipimu le vo plise}.
Good, so I did understand it. And now my
question is "Why is the {le} case different from
the others, chopping up one member of the group,
when all the others chop the group / set / mass /
whatever?" Why not two apples for half of four
apples, rather than half of one apple (or --
considerably less plausibly than two but more
than half of one — half of each of the four
apples)?