WikiDiscuss

pc:
> Of course, just here — on logical grounds as
> well as various parts of CLL — I disagree with
> you: {lo, le, la} introduce distributive groups
> as much as {loi le lai} introduce collective
> groups.

OK, we disagree then.

> > Using the same expression for both would lead
> > to
> > unclear cases. For example, {pimu le selcmi} is
> > half the set, i.e. a set with half of the
> > members of
> > le selcmi, whereas {pa fi'u re le selcmi} gives
> > half of the sets. One out of every two of the
> > sets.
> > We can't conflate them.
>
> Let's see. One of these assumes that {le selcmi}
> is a single set (a group with a single member) --
> of something or other — and therefore that any
> fraction must be a fraction of that set (and
> presumably another set with that fraction of the
> cardinal of the set).

Right.

> The other assumes that {le
> selcmi} is (a group of) several sets and a
> fractional quantifier is therefore (a group of)
> that fraction of several sets.

Minus the intervening groups, yes.

> On your
> reasoning, if {le selcmi} were (a group of)
> several sets, {pimu le selcmi} would be half of
> one of these sets.

Right.

> Now, since this is {le} we
> presumably know how many sets are involved here
> and so no confusion would result from the
> ambiguity.

No confusion results with the two different uses of {pimu}
and {fi'ure}. Confusion does result if they are conflated.

> With {lo}, where the size is in
> doubt, there would be a functioning ambiguity
> with at least the {pimu} case.

If they were conflated, yes.

> And, of course,
> if le selcmi is single, what does {fi'u re lo
> selcmi} mean?

Nothing. "One in every two of the one thing I have
in mind"? It's just nonsense.

> As I said, it seems to me you need and want both
> of these modes of expression for both (all three
> or so?) cases. And that suggests that, to avoid
> ambiguity, the expressions for these various
> purposes cannot be the same — but not different
> form of the quantifier as such. As noted, I like
> the {piPA/ PA fu'i PA si'e} for pieces of an
> individual, {piPA / PA fui PA} for subwhatevers
> and quite explicit forms for a fraction of a
> member of the whatever involved {piPA /PA fu'i PA
> le pa lo ....}, which is about right for all the
> times we will use this.

The long forms are always available, of course.

The only reason I'm bothering with the piPA forms at all
is to keep them CLL-compatible. {pimu} are not even the
more relevant ones. {piso'i} and the like are the ones
that need to be dealt with.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail