WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


BPFK Section: Inexact Numbers

posts: 1912


pc:
> So, what satisfies {pa lo'i broda}?

{pa lo'i broda cu brode} says that of the referents
of {lo'i broda}, however many it has, exactly one of
them satisfies brode.

I don't understand the question "what satisfies
{pa lo'i broda}?" because quantified terms are not
predicates that can be satisfied.

> It can't
> mean "one of the things that satisfy {lo'i
> broda}", since that would always just be {lo'i
> broda} again — and {re lo'i broda} would always
> be meaningless. Or do you think that {lo'i
> broda} is as inherently plural as {lo broda},
> rather than being absolutely singular?

Yes, that's what I think.

> >(They
> > are a special case in that the sumti happen to
> > have a single
> > referent to start with, so quantification is
> > not very
> > interesting, but that's not a violation of the
> > general rule.)
>
> Well, only {lo'i broda} is guaranteed a single
> referent (unless you mean the group — which I
> doubt you do). Does this also mean that {PA lo'i
> broda} is always uninteresting? If not
> meaningless?

When {lo'i broda} has a single referent, {PA lo'i broda}
is meaningful but uninteresting, just as
{PA lo selcmi be lo broda} is when {lo selcmi be lo broda}
has a single referent.


> > Could you make a succint list of the remaining
> > reasons? I think I lost truck, sorry.

Hmm, "track" and "truck" are homonyms for me :-)

> the two sides have different numbers of
> referents;

I admit many referents for {lo'i broda} in general.
{lo'i ro broda} has a single referent, but so does
{lo selcmi be lo ro broda}.

> even if they have the same number
> there is no necessity that they be the same
> referents;

I don't get this. In a given context, they will be the same
referents: namely the set or sets in question.

> they count by different units;

They are both sets, I don't understand what you mean by
them counting by different units.

> there
> partitives are different.

If the partitives are the {piPA} quantifiers, then they
are the same:

piPA lo'i broda
= lo piPAsi'e be lo pa lo'i broda

piPA lo selcmi be lo broda
= lo piPAsi'e be lo pa lo selcmi be lo broda

> Incidentally, you don't
> need the complex, what you want is just {lu'i lo
> broda} — without any problems.

That works too, but as a definition it would be circular,
because I'm defining {lu'i sumti} as {lo'i me sumti}.

If we define {lo'i broda} as {lu'i lo broda} we would
have to define {lu'i sumti} as {lo selcmi be sumti},
with {selcmi} meaning "x2 are the members of x1", or
as {lo se cmima be ro me sumti e no lo na me sumti}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes





__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail