WikiDiscuss

---

wrote:

>
> pc:
> > But apparently you do give different meaning
> > depending on the nature of brodas.
>
> PA sumti is "PA referents of sumti".
> Always.
> piPA sumti is "a piPA fraction of one
> referent of sumti". Always.
>
> Those work for any form of sumti, {lo broda},
> {lo'i broda}, etc,
> and for broda that mean "is an apple" or "is a
> set". So the meaning
> of the construction is independent of the
> nature of brodas.

So, {me lo broda} means "is a referent of {lo
broda}" and what we disagree about then is what a
referent of {lo broda} might be> I say that the
only referent of {lo broda} is a group of broda
and you say — against the odds — that it is one
or several broda. Thus, I come up with a smaller
group of broda (as in English) and you come up
with a fraction of one broda (as in no known
laguage, apparently). So, yes, your position is
coherent, just very strange, at leas in this
case. What, by the way, happened to {me} meaning
"is an instance / example of," which talked about
lo broda, not {lo broda}?

> > > 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.
>
> The first one is collective, the second one
> distributive.

Well, yes, but they are about the same group (or
the same many broda, as you wpould have it); the
distributive / collective differentce only comes
into play at the predication level.

> > And
> > {piso'i le broda} would be?
>
> A large fraction of one of the referents of {le
> broda}.
>
> If {broda} means "is a set of apples", then
> {piso'i le selcmi be lo plise} means "a large
> subset of the set
> of apples.
>
> If {broda} means "is an apple", then {piso'i le
> plise} means
> "a large fraction of the apple".
>
> > Or {so'i lei broda}
> > for that matter.
>
> {so'i lei broda} would be meaningless, because
> {lei broda} has
> a single referent, so there cannot be many of
> them doing anything.

So, {so'i le pa broda} is also nonsensefor the
same reason, but {piso'i lei ro broda} would also
be nonsense again for that reason. this still
seems very odd to me, "unnatural" as it were --
certainly in comparison with the old consensus .
And, of course, with your second definition
(which in this case is the clearer one).

> > It starts to look as though
> > these {pi} with nonnumeric quantifiers are
> just
> > redundant.
>
> I think they are. I wouldn't want to define
> them if they weren't
> already there.

How would you replace them, since by you they do
have non-redundant uses: how do {piso'i le broda}
without {piso'i}? I take using {fu'i} somehow as
a cheat.

> > Is that why you decided to give them
> > a new use (or why the creatorss of Lojban did
> --
> > to the extent that they did)?
>
> You should ask them. I'm just defining them in
> accordance with CLL.

Well, given the muddle in that section of CLL, it
would be hard to avoid this for some part. Or,
for that matter, to do something that *is* in
accord with the whole of the section. Still, the
general thrust of that section — as worked out
later by you and & -- seems very different from
what you offer. And far more sensible.