WikiDiscuss

---

wrote:

>
> pc:
>
> > 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.

Given your interpretations, that is — which do
not seem to me to be well motivated. The one
which would create a problem here, {pimu le
selcmi} meaning one half of one of the several
sets, seems to me particularly unlikely. If I
remember correctly, there was nothing with that
meaning in any of the natural language cases.
The closest was "the halves of the several sets,"
a possibility you (wisely) pass over.

> > 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.

But why not a set consisting of half of the set
mentioned; this seems consistent with your other
explanations — when it is otherwise forced on
one.

> > 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.

But what about the short (non-decimal) versions
for pieces of s single thing. Why should a thrid
of a person be longer and vaguer than a half? To
use the fractional forms would require using the
long forms, at least with {si'e}. OK, I revise
my question: why allow the short forms for some
cases of fractions of individuals; the long forms
are more in accord with use.

>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.
>
Why are these more problematic — aside from the
usual problems with {so'i} and the like, which
have to be dealt with regardless of {pi}?