WikiDiscuss

Posted by pycyn on Fri 06 of Aug, 2004 22:05 GMT posts: 2388

The titel is a bit misleading as it applies at most to the last three cases; the oters are perfectly objective.
As often noted, the last three need a place (s0mehow) to talk about purposes (at which point they become less subjective). Once that desideratum is found, we also need a quantifier(?) "so many" for results rather than purposes and [prbably a comparative form, "as many as" (but at least the last of these can be cobbled together fairly naturally out of existing elements).
While "too few" is probably the same (as near as makes no never-mind) to "less than enough," "too many" is not the same as "more than enough." "Too many" has negative connotations (at least, there may also be objective bits) while "more than enough" is positive — where "enough" is just barely sqeaking by.

Posted by xorxes on Fri 06 of Aug, 2004 23:33 GMT posts: 1912

pc:
> Re: BPFK Section: Subjective Numbers
> The titel is a bit misleading as it applies at most to the last three cases;
> the oters are perfectly objective.

Yes. CLL calls some of them "indefinite numbers" and others "inexact numbers".
I can't change the title though.

> As often noted, the last three need a place (s0mehow) to talk about purposes
> (at which point they become less subjective).

Yes, that might be a new cmavo in NOI. (Or, I wouldn't mind recycling
{voi} for this.)

> Once that desideratum is
> found, we also need a quantifier(?) "so many" for results rather than
> purposes and [prbably a comparative form, "as many as" (but at least the last
> of these can be cobbled together fairly naturally out of existing elements).

I wonder if {xokau} plus the new NOI might work for "so many... that".
Hmmm... This needs more thinking.

> While "too few" is probably the same (as near as makes no never-mind) to
> "less than enough," "too many" is not the same as "more than enough." "Too
> many" has negative connotations (at least, there may also be objective bits)
> while "more than enough" is positive — where "enough" is just barely
> sqeaking by.

I prefer "the right number" as a gloss for {rau}. Then "too few" is
"less than the right number" and "too many" is "more than the right
number". This means that I'm defining {rau} as bounded both from below
and from above: {rau} is more than too few AND less than too many.
"Enough" is more properly {su'orau}, "at least the right number".
The reason is that this seems to be how the so'V series works too,
as well as numbers in general {ci gerku} is exactly three dogs, not
at least three dogs. Also, there is an example in CLL, {raumoi} in line,
that doesn't really work with "at least the right number", because
the right number is clearly bounded from above in that case.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

___
Do you Yahoo!?
Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com

Posted by rlpowell on Tue 10 of Aug, 2004 23:35 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 04:16:08PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> pc:
> > Re: BPFK Section: Subjective Numbers The titel is a bit misleading
> > as it applies at most to the last three cases; the oters are
> > perfectly objective.
>
> Yes. CLL calls some of them "indefinite numbers" and others "inexact
> numbers". I can't change the title though.

But I can.

-Robin

Posted by xorxes on Tue 10 of Aug, 2004 23:36 GMT posts: 1912

> > > Re: BPFK Section: Subjective Numbers The titel is a bit misleading
> > > as it applies at most to the last three cases; the oters are
> > > perfectly objective.
> >
> > Yes. CLL calls some of them "indefinite numbers" and others "inexact
> > numbers". I can't change the title though.
>
> But I can.

Something like "quantifiers" might be better. They can be used as
other-than-quantifiers too, but that's their main function.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Posted by pycyn on Wed 11 of Aug, 2004 13:23 GMT posts: 2388

On the other hand, "quantifier" has an established use that is broader than these case, so maybe sticking with "subjective" or "inexact" or "relative" will do.

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

> > > Re: BPFK Section: Subjective Numbers The titel is a bit misleading
> > > as it applies at most to the last three cases; the oters are
> > > perfectly objective.
> >
> > Yes. CLL calls some of them "indefinite numbers" and others "inexact
> > numbers". I can't change the title though.
>
> But I can.

Something like "quantifiers" might be better. They can be used as
other-than-quantifiers too, but that's their main function.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Re: BPFK Section: Subjective Numbers
The titel is a bit misleading as it applies at most to the last three cases; the oters are perfectly objective.
As often noted, the last three need a place (s0mehow) to talk about purposes (at which point they become less subjective). Once that desideratum is found, we also need a quantifier(?) "so many" for results rather than purposes and [prbably a comparative form, "as many as" (but at least the last of these can be cobbled together fairly naturally out of existing elements).
While "too few" is probably the same (as near as makes no never-mind) to "less than enough," "too many" is not the same as "more than enough." "Too many" has negative connotations (at least, there may also be objective bits) while "more than enough" is positive — where "enough" is just barely sqeaking by.