WikiDiscuss

---

wrote:

>
> pc:
>
> > 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".

I see that we are still reading {me} differently,
much as I try to keep up with the shifting
meanings of that expression. I would read {me
lo'i broda} as "one broda," that is "one member
of the set of broda," taking it to be the analog
for sets of "among" for plurals (that is
strictly, of course, inclusion, not membership
but at least for singulars the difference is
systematically ignored). Otherwise, {me lo'i
broda} reduces to {lo'i broda} and the
definitions that follow that form become circular
and the whole expression useless.

>
> > > 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}:

To say it again: if the quantification is
singular, the constants can't be plural --
without a Hell of a lot of explanation of idioms
that has not yet been supplied. Note also that
the notion of a plural coinstant is a peculiar
one unless you can guarantee that all the
individuals covered by the "constant" always
behave exactly the same. Otherwise, negation
cannot pass freely through (one of the marks of a
constant).

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

And what does that mean now that meanings are
shifting all over the place? If — as appears to
be the case — it means all the things that are
groups of five specific brodas, then this is
certainly an innovation and I would think a bad
idea. We can do your intended meaning of the
expression easily without that expression, but it
is not clear how we can do the real meaning of
the expression if we adopted your change. How do
we say "all the five brodas" as opposed to "all
fives of brodas" on your new version? And, by the
way, didn't you once withdraw this change? Why
the reversal yet again?

> > 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.

Well, aside from the fact that we still lack a
nailed down definition of {lo}, I suppose you
can. My choice would be, as you know, to use
plural definitions and use {loi} for collective
predications, {lo} for distributive and {lo'i}
for permanent collectives, but that is a proposal
to be debated separately, not assumed in
discussions of what proposal to use. As for doing
something other than reified thigns for {loi} and
{lo'i}; what choices do we have?

> > 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.

My only arguments for doing thing that way are 1)
that it makes Q1 uniform across the categories
(but you somehow don't see {lo broda} as a
group), 2)it is the "natural" reading and 3) it
is hard to get it with the other reading
(although splitting {pa fi'u re} from {pimu}
would do it and I can hardly complain about it
since I would split {pimu} from {nopimu}. As is
true for most of these suggestion, either would
work; the choices seem to be based on views about
which are more Lojbanic or more convenient
(including zipfean matters) or more natural. (I
would throw in a check with the usages of logic
but that is clearly nowadays a minor point.)So
once we get the basic definitions straight, any
of these possibilities (on this issue and others
about quantifiers and relative clause and so on)
will have a variety of solutions, any one of
which will work and the choiuce will be on
essentially aesthetic grounds. It is good to
have these laid out now though we cannot really
chose in the absence of clear treatment of the
basic notions, {lo}, {le}, and — probably
included — {la}.

> > 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.
>
I took the first to be unambiguously in favoe of
two apples — correct? Note that none of these
gives *one* half apple. In a word, Spanish is
pretty much like English (given the falling
together to a large extent of "from" and "of").