WikiDiscuss

Rob Speer:
> Your proposal for quantifiers is not very well-formed. The {ro ze} in {lo ro
> ze
> bidju} is a single number, though I have no idea what the heck number it is.

{roze} for "all seven" is CLL-sanctioned:

-----------------------
Another possibility is that of combining definite and indefinite
numbers into a single number. This usage implies that the two kinds
of numbers have the same value in the given context:

8.18) mi viska le rore gerku
I saw the all-of/two dogs.
I saw both dogs.

8.19) mi speni so'ici prenu
I am-married-to many/three persons.
I am married to three persons
(which is ``many'' in the circumstances).

Example 8.19 assumes a mostly monogamous culture by stating that
three is ``many''.
----------------------

> I really think that this page needs to be reformulated to clarify just how
> simple the new {lo} is. Right now, it doesn't draw much attention to its
> simplicity, so people who have tried to follow the discussion assume that the
> evil Mr. Rabbit is lurking behind the scenes.

How do you suggest I word the definition? I think the examples
show the simplicity of the new {lo}. Just try saying them with
the old one.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/