Re: Quantifiers (was Re: A modest proposal #2: verdicality)

["Dylan P. Thurston" <DPT@HUMA1.BITNET>]

mi cusku di'e
 > > ("Oh! Oh! Oops.  I thought, erroneously and for instance, that {le ri
 > > panzi} meant the same as {le panzi be [fe] ri}."
 >
 > > Could I use {sinxa} instead of {selsmu}?

la xorxes. cusku di'e
 > I would say yes.

Anyone have thoughts on the precise difference (if any) between {sinxa}
and {se smuni}?  The gismu list says something about "referential
meaning", but I'm not sure what that is.

 > > Is there a way to mark the {fe} as optional?
 > > Perhaps {.einai} or {sei zifre}?)
 >
 > Not {einai}, that's a comment on what you say, not on what you are
 > using to say it. I've no idea about {sei zifre}. I would just
 > say {to fe toi}.

Unfortunately, {to fe toi} is not grammatical at that point (after the
{be} in {le panzi be ri}.  Also, {to fe toi} is only grammatical by
coincidence:  it's interpreted as a single placed sumti.  *{to cu toi},
for instance, would not be grammatical.

I think I'll just use square brackets.

 > > I wasn't asking about usefulness, but that is a good example that
 > > hadn't occurred to me.  {le re da} == {le broda voi remei} == {le te
 > > remei}, right?
 >
 > Not quite. {le re da} has two individual referents.
 >
 > {le broda voi remei} has an unspecified number of referents, each of
 > which is a pair.

Right, true.  {le broda voi te remei} would most likely be interpreted
as having two referents, though.  (Although literally it's just
something(s) that belong to pairs.)

 > > ({le remei} would be a mass, {le se remei} would be a
 > > set;
 >
 > My list says {le te remei} is the set. I know this was changed
 > at some point, so I'm not sure which one is the most up to date.

My cmavo list (dated 6/94, the one at the ftp site) says

mei MOI cardinal selbri convert number to cardinality selbri; x1 is the
mass formed from set x2 whose n member(s) are x 3

I don't understand the description of the x3 place, so I've just been
assuming that it should read "with element x3".

 > The individual vs mass distinction is important in Lojban.
 > I don't know if it will survive in practice, but in theory
 > it is at the base of the whole quantification scheme.

Oh, yes, it's a beautiful theory (I think--I may not understand
everything yet).  Unfortunately, I find it a bit hard to believe it will
ever come fluently to most people.

 > ... <etc.; the various ways to say "there are three men in the room">

Hold on, let's back up.  I was intending to give alternatives for "There
are _exactly_ three men in the room", but I think most of my
alternatives fell short, saying, at most, "there are _at least_ three
men in the room".  Which of the following work?  What the best way to
say this?

        lo ci nanmu pe ne'i le kumfa cu ce'o
        .i le ni lo nanmu cu nenri le kumfa cu du ci
        .i piro loi nanmu pe ne'i le kumfa cu cimei

(#2 is ambiguous, perhaps.)

 > > (There's got to be a technical reason the {zi'e} is necessary, yes?  I
 > > know {le se cusku pe mi pe do} is grammatical with a different
 > > meaning, but {le se cusku pe mi ge'u pe do} is not grammatical.)
 >
 > It is grammatical, but {zi'e} at least saves you from having to use
 > {ge'u}. It is much easier to mentally parse the sentence with {zi'e}
 > than with {ge'u}.

Oh!  You're right, it is.  But if you look at the parser output
        ({<le [(se cusku) (pe mi ge'u)] KU> <pe do GE'U>} VAU)

you'll see that it's equivalent to {le se cusku pe mi ku pe do}.
Wouldn't work for more that two relative clauses.

(This leads me to wonder what the consequences of changing
sumti-tail-1<112> = [quantifier] selbri [relative-clauses] | quantifier sumti
to
sumti-tail-1<112> = [quantifier] selbri | quantifier sumti
in the BNF would be, other than making {le se cusku pe mi ku}
ungrammatical.)

Anyway, yes, {zi'e} is easier to understand.