WikiDiscuss

pc:
> > 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"

No, I don't think it is. Which parts?

> Can you use
> {me} with something that is not at least
> potentially a plurality, htat is, a set, group,
> or whatever?

Yes. {me sumti} is "x1 is/are among the sumti",
so when sumti refers to a set, {me sumti} gives
you "x1 is a set (of ...)". For example {me lo'i plise}
means "x1 is a set of apples".

> > 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,

No, I only use singular quantification. I do use plural
constants though. {le mu broda} is a constant with five
referents. {ro le mu broda} is singular quantification
over the referents of {le mu broda}:

ro le mu broda = ro da poi ke'a me le mu broda

> in whihc
> case we would presumably get rid of the groups
> and sets elsewhere as well.

As I said, I don't care either way. If it were my decision,
I would get rid of all gadri but la/le/lo. This is not
feasible, so I'm willing to go along with what the majority
prefers for loi/lo'i etc., and that appears to be reified
groups and sets. I can get those with {lo} too of course:
{loi broda} = {lo gunma be lo broda}, and so on.

> 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).

OK, your view in this respect is not so different from mine,
then. If you read the full page BPFK Section: Inexact Numbers
<http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK+Section%3A+Inexact+Numbers>
you will see that I use {pa fi'u re} for the proportional reading.

Our only disagreement (at least as far as this goes) is whether
to make {pimu} equivalent to {pa fi'u re} (your choice) or
to {nopimu} (my choice). Not a very big deal.

> 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)?

"Media de las cuatro manzanas", as opposed to "la mitad
de las cuatro manzanas". The latter is ambiguous
between two apples and four half-apples, just as
"half of the four apples" in English.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail