WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


BPFK Section: gadri

1> I doubt that the most common group is a singleton; the most common is surely no group at all but just and individual. But then I suppose that is what you meant; quantifying into a singleton would make sense, though on with {pa} — and fractionals. I again would say that the most common thing would be to count individuals, which I assume is what you mean. But it does not seem to me that that helps at all with the question of internal quantifiers as group sizes, since the analogy is not very good.

2> Yes, but these are rather complex. The first has a short form and the second does not, but I suspect the second is more common — or at least as common — as the first.

3> {lo2} does not behave like a constant, since it is not one (it is not tranparent to any operation). {lo3} does behave like a constant (since it is one) but is abstract and relatively impervious (as described so far) to factual properties (though that could be changed fairly easily at this point).
Jorge LlambĂ­as <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:

pc:
> A> I confess that I have trouble in casual reading to remember what exactly
> is the difference between a group of seven broda and a heptad of broda. It
> is the external quantifier that makes the difference, whether it is partitive
> or repetitive: is {ci lo ze broda} three out of the one group of seven broda
> or three broda heptads. I am also not sure which is the more useful. Are
> there stats on this?

1>I don't know if there are stats. To me the obvious way to see
which is more useful is to consider the most common group
used: singletons. Quantifying over members of a singleton
is a waste of time. Quantifying over instances of a singleton
is the most common use of quantifiers.

> But it is clear that we can get broda heptads with the
> present system (or this minor modification); how do we get partititves from
> the heptad system(I am sure there is a straightforward way of doing it, I
> just don't see it off hand).

2>We can get both relatively easily:

PA mupli be lo ze broda
PA instances of lo ze broda

PA cmima be lo ze broda
PA members of lo ze broda

(In the case of {le} the situation is reversed. We normally have
a single instance in mind (be it of an individual or group), so
quantifying over instances is a waste of time, the useful quantification
in this case is over members when we have a specific group in mind.)

> B> This remarks makes it seem that the proposed {lo} is {lo3}, whereas
> others more or less force {lo2}. Maybe the notion is not quite as simple as
> rabspir thinks.

3>If lo2 does not act like a constant term, then the proposed lo
is not lo2.

mu'o mi'e xorxes





__
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/