Quantifiers

[Dylan Thurston <dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU>]

mi cusku di'e
 > >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?

la kris cusku di'e
 > I think "ci [lo] nanmu cu nenri le kumfa" does what you want.  Check out the
 > definition of "ci" carefully.

(You imply that there is a definition of {ci} somewhere.  Is there?  As
far as I can tell, the best discussion is in the mex and sumti papers.)

 > In English "three men are in the room"
 > doesn't necessarily rule out that there are other men there too.  But I
 > think Lojban does rule this out.  If you wanted to allow for more men you'd
 > explicitly have to say "su'oci nanmu"

Yes, that seems right now.  (Although I see I've tricked you, too, into
believing {nanmu} means "men" rather than "women".)  (And see below.)

But see below for the odd semantics.

 > Of your three attempts I think only the last one is drani.
 >
 > >        lo ci nanmu pe ne'i le kumfa cu ce'o
 >     One or more of the three men which are in the room, do something
 >         [(use co'e, not ce'o) I see what you're trying to do here and
 >           I guess it's correct as far as it goes but I'm not sure it
 >           actually claims there are three men in the room; it simply
 >           assumes it.  Only the main bridi is claimed (that they are
 >           doing something unspecified, which is always true, I guess).]

Well, it's an incidental claim, yes?
It would be confusing, in any case.

 > >        .i le ni lo nanmu cu nenri le kumfa cu du ci
 >     The quantity of "the men are in the room" is three
 >         [I think you need to quantify the men, not the whole
 >           statement of their being in a room.  "ni" has fairly
 >           limited usage, pe'i]

Yes,
        le ni nanmu ne'i le kumfa cu du ci
would be required.

 > >        .i piro loi nanmu pe ne'i le kumfa cu cimei
 >     The entire mass of men which are in the room is a threesome
 >         [pe'i drani]
 >
 > How about this:
 >
 >         ro nanmu poi nenri le kumfa cu se klani li ci
 >
 > or
 >         ro nanmu pe ne'i le kumfa cu se klani li ci

Don't think these work:  "Each of the women in the room quantifies 3."
I think you got {klani} backwards, but even if you switch it, it means
something entirely different.  (Perhaps they're all 3 (somethings)
tall?).  But

        piro loi nanmu pe ne'i le kumfa cu klani li ci

would do it.

Remember that {lo nanmu} is the individuals; any claim involving it is a
claim about _each_ of the women.  {lo nanmu} should be equivalent to a
list of all women, connected by {.e} (and quantified by {si'u}).

This has some slightly odd consequences, though I'm not sure how to work
them with the grammar.  But I believe

        pa lu'a le xunre cukta .e le blabi cukta .e le blanu cukta
                cu cpana le jubme

means
        Exactly one of the red book, the white book, and the blue book
                is on the table

Yes?

(This is related to a problem in the Connective System paper:  how to
say "I am German, rich, and a man -- or else none of these" concisely
(not that I know why you'd want to).  But there are two problems:

(a) You'd want to say something like {no jo ro}, but that's not
grammatical.

(b) This trick only works for sumti, not selbri (or whatever), as you'd
have to do for the case above.

Change {ci nanmu} to be a selbri instead of a sumti would fix the
second.  For the first, you could convert the selbri to properties or
some such.)

mu'o mi'e. dilyn.