WikiDiscuss

pc:
> > > 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.

None of the forms change with the meaning of "broda".
{piPA le broda} is always about fractions of broda,
and {fi'u PA le broda} is always about a number of
brodas, whatever broda is.

> > 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.

I wouldn't mind forbidding those forms, I don't really
use them. What I don't want is to give different meanings
to {piPA lo broda} depending on the meaning of "broda".
The generalization to pieces for brodas that don't have
members is the natural one, and also follows from the
natural interpretation of things like {3.5 lo broda}.

> >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}?

They are not problematic, they are just explicitly covered
in CLL.

piso'i lei broda = a large fraction of the broda
so'i le broda = many of the broda

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com