BPFK Section: Inexact Numbers
Well, the obvious and natural solution does not
fit any of these choices exactly: recognize that
{lo}, {le} and {la} refer to groups (or whatever;
the terms keep shifting here) as well as {loi},
{lei} and {lai} do. Then we get the natural
result: external quantifiers refer to subgroups
of the indicated size, whether absolute,
proportional to the size of indicated group, or
relative to the (usually implicit) state of
affairs used for comparison. The internal
quantifiers do the same for the whole of broda,
whatever that may be. This has been the
practical understanding of these quantifiers for
about as many years as reinterpretation to get
around problems with CLL's muddle about plurals
has been allowed.
wrote:
>
> --- Rob Speer wrote:
> > 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
>
>
>