BPFK Section: Inexact Numbers
wrote:
>
> pc:
> > If you want to say
> > that {lo vo plise} has four referents, then
> you
> > owe us an explanation (a real definition) of
> just
> > how that works.
>
> I don't think any further explanation I may
> give would ever
> satisfy you.
>
Well, hard to say since you haven't ever really
tried. I do know that the converse problem in
plural logic — defining singular and
distributive predication in terms of collective
-- is fairly easy. But just what is the purpose
of these various definitions you offer for {lo}
and {le} in particular (and derivatively for the
others)? They certainly fail as definitions and
they are confusing and misleading as paraphrases
(and also generally exxplaining the relatively
clear by the markedly less clear). There is also
the problem of the description (definition one)
not matching the "formal definition" (assuming
for the moment that the latter succeeds in saying
something), leaving the student high and dry for
any explanation at all — even without the
plurality problem.
I do note a possible source for your confusion.
Because of the way that {lo broda cu brode} is
defined (Q of these broda are brode), it turns
out that we cannot say directly that {lo broda}
refers to a group {lo broda cu girzu} is only
true if the member broda are themselves groups.
We have to go to material mode: {la'e li lo broda
li'u girzu}. It also occurs to me that the
difference between a girzu and a gunma may be
part of the problem. Though we can't say it
officially, that this pretty much the difference
between distributive and collective predication.