WikiDiscuss

---

wrote:

>
> pc:
> > 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.
>
> I'm working under the definitions proposed in
> BPFK Section: gadri
>
<http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK+Section%3A+gadri>

But those definition are inconsistent, vaaague,
ambiguous, dubious and occasionally flat wrong.
Why would you stick with them — aside from their
being yours from various occasions. I am sure
that you mean to fix them — indeed, I suppose
that that is part of what these discussions are
about.
> > > 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.
>
> Yes, that's why I said that when the sumti has
> more than one referent
> the fractional indicates a fraction of one of
> them, without specifying
> which one. So the general formula is:
>
> piPA sumti = lo piPAse'i be lo pa me
> sumti
> "A piPA fraction of one of the sumti"

You do realize that this specification is at
variance with other parts of your "formal
definitions" and they with other parts of what
you say on htat page and elsewhere. (A part of
what I mean by saying the above.) Can you use
{me} with something that is not at least
potentially a plurality, htat is, a set, group,
or whatever?

> This works also when sumti has a single
> referent, in which case
> "one of the sumti" is the one referent.
>
> > > 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
> >
> > 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.
>
> It is always a fraction of the referent. It is
> just that
> the referents of {lei plise} and {le'i plise}
> are groups and
> sets, whereas the referents of {le} are the
> apples.

As I keep pointing out: no it ain't — unless we
have switched to plural quantification, in whihc
case we would presumably get rid of the groups
and sets elsewhere as well. And {le} would still
be of the same sort as {lei}.

> Are you proposing that {pimu le vo plise} = {re
> le vo plise}?

yes; at least as far as how many apples are
involved. I suspect there are nuances that
differ, though I don't know what they are (or
will turn out to be, better).

> What would you then make of {repimu le vo
> plise}?
>
Two and a half apples. I take it that the
proportional reading of {piPA} only holds for
fractions less that 1. They always are the size
of the subgroup/set/whatever, however. I think
your version would consequently have to be
{nopimu lo vo plise}(the awkwardness
corresponding to the rarity of its use).

I tried, by the way, to find an experssion in a
real language which would have your suggested
import and that was close to the structure of
{pimu lo vo plise}. The closest I could get was
a version in various languages of "a half of one
of the apples" {pimu lo pa lo vo plise} or
thereabouts. In English, which is more subject to
these tricks than some, I could make a case for
"a half from the four apples" but not a tight
case. What does Spanish offer along this line --
or any other natural language (not of course a
proof, but evidence surely)?