WikiDiscuss

---

wrote:

>
> 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.

How did I miss the shift to plural
quantification? If there are four apples then
they can be the referents only if plural
references are dealt with.., they are not in
standard Lojban.

> 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}.

But you just said the referent was the four
apples, not some one of them. Please stick to
one side of the issue or the other.

> > 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

Ahah! It is not partitiveness that is the problem
but whether {piPA} as Q1 is an absolute or a
proportional number. The thrust from {le} and
{le'i} is that it is proportional (as it also
seems to be for Q2). But when we get to {le}
(and{lo}?) it becomes absolute. I am afraid I
don't yet see why; the objects referred to seem
to be of the same sort.