WikiDiscuss

pc:
> 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?"

In the case of {le}, there is no group involved, just
the individuals themselves.

The fractional always indicates a fraction of the
referent: a fraction of a set of apples for {le'i plise},
a fraction of a group of apples for {lei plise}, a fraction
of an individual apple for {le plise}.

> 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)?

So that we can have:

3.5 le vo plise = 3.5 of the 4 apples
3.0 le vo plise = 3.0 of the 4 apples
2.5 le vo plise = 2.5 of the 4 apples
2.0 le vo plise = 2.0 of the 4 apples
1.5 le vo plise = 1.5 of the 4 apples
1.0 le vo plise = 1.0 of the 4 apples
0.5 le vo plise = 0.5 of the 4 apples

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo