WikiDiscuss

---

> Sanity check. Are you saying that {pa fi'u re} is different as an outer
> quantifier than {pi mu}?

Right. The proposed definitions are:

PA1 fi'u PA2 sumti = PA1 out of every PA2 of the referents of sumti.

piPA sumti = A piPA fraction of one of the referents of sumti.

> Are you saying that {pi mu broda} means half of one broda, while {pa fi'u re
> broda} means half of all brodas?

"One out of every two brodas", yes.

> If so, why?

To be consistent with other definitions.

We want masses to be things: {loi broda} = {lo gunma be lo broda}

We want {piso'i loi broda} to be "a lot of brodas".

>I thought it was concluded a while ago that outer quantifiers
> that
> don't somehow resolve to an integer don't make sense. (As in, you can't
> really
> say you have 0.5 apples, when what you have is a single half-apple, because
> you could also have two half-apples that are different from one apple.)

piPA quantifiers, as can be seen from the definition, are not true
quantifiers. They are a shorthand for a description.

piPA sumti = lo piPA si'e be pa me sumti

(The same is true for inner quantifiers, which are also part of a
description.)

I am not especially committed to this definition of piPA quantifiers.
If we want to identify {pimu} with {pa fi'u re} as quantifiers, then
we must:

1) Drop CLL's interpretation of piPA's with masses and sets,

or

2) Drop the idea that masses and sets are possible values of da,

or

3) Drop the interpretation of {PA1fi'uPA2} as PA1 out of every PA2,

or

4) Find some other definitions that are consistent with all of that.

Any suggestions?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

___
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com