WikiDiscuss

A> Nice to see CLL doing something right in anticipation of needs.

B> The examples present a number of problems, as I have noted. Most of them derive from some uncertainty about the meaning of your {lo} in that, with some one meaning each could be resolved, but that the resolving meaning appears to be different for different cases. So fixing on one relatively simple and metaphysically unsuspect meaning and then checking that all the examples fit it would be a big help. Mr. Rabbit, as presented, won't do.

Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
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.

A>{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.

B>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/