[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
>
> >Nick:
> > > So I prefer to convert the
> > > individual to be halved into substance first, and then fractionally
> > > quantify over that
> >
> >You're quantifying over bits of substance, not over substance
> >Since the same fractional quantifier can arguably quantify over
> >members of a collective or set, too, I agree that the lo-phrase
> >before application of the quantifier must be converted into the
> >desired type
>
> Is the consensus then that "fractional quantifiers" are true
> quantifiers? "piro" means "each bit of", and not "the largest
> possible bit of" (="the whole")?
I don't know if that's the consensus, but Lojbab persuaded me into
this view (!!!). There are two reasons. The first is that if
fractional quantifiers weren't true quantifiers then they would
have to be abolished; that is, given the grammatical environments
they occur in, they must be true quantifiers. The second reason
is that it's difficult to see the difference between "each bit
of" and "the whole" (and likewise for other fractions), unless,
say, the "an x-sized bit of" has extra properties such as integrity
of form, and if so then this is something that should be expressed
by a selbri.
> That may be preferrable
> as long as there are no default quantifiers so that we can
> still refer to wholes.
I agree.
> But then how do we say "a large bit of",
> given that {piso'i} would mean "many bits of"?
{piso'i} would mean "*proportionally* many bits of", and hence
would be equivalent to "a large bit of".
--And.