BPFK Section: Inexact Numbers
wrote:
>
> 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.
Exactly. Is not half a broda a number of broda
-- the number required if {lo broda} is a single
thing?
>
> > > 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}.
But apparently you do give different meaning
depending on the nature of brodas. Otherwisse I
simply cannot understand some of your examples --
same form, different readings.
> > >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
>
That is, the two mean virtually the same thing in
reality, however different they are in form. And
{piso'i le broda} would be? Or {so'i lei broda}
for that matter. It starts to look as though
these {pi} with nonnumeric quantifiers are just
redundant. Is that why you decided to give them
a new use (or why the creatorss of Lojban did --
to the extent that they did)?