Re: Quantifiers

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

mi cusku di'e
 > > OK, I see what you're trying to do here, although one bothers me slightly:
 > >
 > >  >     lei ninmu cu frica lei nanmu le ka xokau ke'a cu nenri le kumfa.
 > >  >     The women differ from the men in how many of them are in the room.
 > >  >     (how many = xokau; them = ke'a)
 > >
 > > By the rules for {ke'a} as I understand them, here it's a placeholder
 > > for either {lei ninmu} or {lei nanmu}--in any case, a mass.
...
 > > (The same thing happens in your original sentence:
 > >          le se klani be lei nanmu bei lo ckilu be le ka xokau ke'a
 > >          cu nenri le kumfa cu du li ci

la xorxes. cusku di'e
 > Well, here it is not so clear, since ke'a doesn't really tie in with
 > {lei nanmu}. It's just "a scale to measure the property of how many
 > ---- are in the room". {xokau} can mean both how many, or what
 > fraction, so it is a bit ambiguous.

Right, "a scale to measure the property of how many --- are in the room"
is a good translation of {lo ckilu be le ka xokau ke'a cu nenri le
kumfa}.  But then you proceed to put masses of men on that scale.  (This
is an awfully pedantic point, admittedly.)

...
 > > And maybe switch to using sets if you lose the fight with
 > > John.)
 >
 > Never!  :)

It seems that sets might be slightly more appropriate, even given that
John's going to lose :-), since you're not actually using any of the
emergent properties of the mass.

 > >  > I think this is all consistent, and I don't see how {ni} could fit in
 > >  > there.
 > >
 > > Hmm.  I'm still somewhat uncomfortable.  The {kau} in the examples
 > > above served as a placeholder for the point of comparison (i.e., in
 > > which way they differed).  I can't imagine what a sumti like {mi klani
 > > le ka ke'a dunda makau} would mean
 >
 > If you mena {mi ckaji le ka ke'a dunda makau}, that would be "I am
 > characterized by what I give/ what I give is characteristic of mi".
 > With {klani}, I have no idea.

Yes, I meant {ckaji}.

But it seems like you may be using a different meaning of "characterize"
than the one intended by the gismu list writers, one more appropriate to
{steci}.  What do you think the English sentence means?  Is it the same
as "what I give is particular to me"?

(I wouldn't necessarily require that uses of {ka} with and without {kau}
appear in the same locations; as I pointed out, it doesn't happen with
{du'u} in the first place of {facki}.  Just something to think about.)

My vague uneasiness still persists.  Your examples are very good, but
I'd really like an _explanation_ of what's going on and what, exactly,
the function of {kau} as you use it is.  (I'd like to see this for
{du'u}, too, but no one's lobbying for change there.)  Alternatively, a
gloss would do it.

But any alternate way to say the sentences you mentioned, I suppose I'll
just go ahead and use this syntax in the (somewhat unlikely) event I
need to.

mu'o mi'e. dilyn.