Re: Quantifiers

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

la xorxes. cusku di'e
 > >  > Maybe you could say:
 > >  >
 > >  >         le namcu pe lei nanmu pe ne'i le kumfa cu du li ci

.i babo mi spuda fi di'e
 > > I think I'd prefer
 > >         le se klani be lo'i nanmu pe ne'i le kumfa cu du li ci

.i babo la xorxes spuda fi di'e
 > Why a set? A set is not a quantity, is it? At least say {le se klani
 > be lei nanmu pe ne'i le kumfa}

No, a set's not a quantity, but there's only one reasonable way to
quantify a set.  I don't know if there's only one way to quantify a
mass, pending John's response to your excellent point.  Could it be,
say, the total weight?  But I did know for sure about sets.

 > > but I have no idea what would go in the x3 of {klani} if {le namcu}
 > > doesn't work.
 >
 > How about this:
 >
 >         le se klani be lei nanmu bei lo ckilu be le ka xokau ke'a
 >         cu nenri le kumfa cu du li ci

I don't follow this.  You use _both_ {xokau} and {ke'a}, and not
inside a {du'u}, a relative clause, or any other sort of similar
thing?

 > > (Maybe it should be {le si'o nanmcu}?)
 >
 > The idea of number? I don't really understand why scales are
 > supposed to be {si'o}.

Yes, I don't like it much either.  But {le namcu} should be one or more
specific numbers I have in mind, rather than a "cardinality" scale.

mu'o mi'e. dilyn.