Re: TECH vrici

[And Rosta <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

John says:
> su'osu'epa, if it is intended to mean "exactly one", is correct but
> pointless; the standard Lojban translation of "exactly one" is simply "pa".
> In other words, Lojban quantifiers are exact by default, rather than having
> a vague amount of exactness.  In particular:  a normal goat with four legs
> may be said to "have two legs" in English (since four exceeds two), but not
> in Lojban.  The whole point of "su'o" and "su'e" and (at the other end)
> "ji'i" is to make specific the use of imprecise numbers.

While I would agree that in English _There are a dozen people here_ means
"approximately 12" & in Lojban (if John says so) "exactly 12", I don't
think this should extend to _The typical goat has two legs_ - even in
English, this does not mean "roughly two legs"; one can say _The
typical millipede has two legs_, & this is true, even if _two_ is
interpreted as exact.

This is not to say that _pa_ shouldn't mean "only one"; I'm just
pointing out that John's goat example has nothing to do with
imprecision.

---
And.