proportions

[djandus]

So, I just wanted to know, what's the official way to do a few quantifying things right now?

How can I translate each of the following into Lojban:

1. You like two of my shoes.

2. You like both of my shoes.

3. You like two of my three shoes.

The first one is a bit of confirmation. I would use 1:{do nelci re cutci pe mi}.

I have two main concerns between the other two, with so many little questions on the side.

For one, is one way to do proportions 3:{do nelci refi'uci lo cutci pe mi}? If so, what about implications of 2/3 of a group of 6 or 9? Is that an issue with {loi}? Can I get rid of lo in the last bit, by {refi'uci lo cutci} == {refi'uci cutci}? Is there an easier way? Are there alternate ways? What's the point of lo's inner quantifier, and can it help with anything like this? (This was demonstrated in "ancient" texts, but not it post-xorlo writings, so what happens now?) And, while I'm at it, does using {loi} here instead of {lo} make any explicit difference past an implication of {do} liking the group distributively?

For another, how is (2) different from (3)? I could use the same as 1:{do nelci re cutci pe mi} and it would of course be true, but what are the ways to indicate that that number is for the whole group? I'm imagining you could have 2:{do nelci pa loi re cutci pe mi}, but now I'm back to wondering all of the things from the other concern, like can I use {lo} instead of {loi} and it act the same way quantitatively? If I try to use a proportion, does {pafi'upa} act differently from {refi'ure} in this case? (Note that I don't want it to, but I'm wondering what the state of things right now is.)

So, I'm really hoping that this doesn't explode into random topics -- I just want to know the best way to translate those three statements, hopefully in a way where all my quantifying qualms will be quenched. (Alliterative apologies, dear audience.)

[John E Clifford]

Well, assuming 'lo mi cutci' is lost and gone forever (L3) a good old style version would be:
do nelci re lo ro cutci pe mi
do nelci re lo re cutci pe mi (could use 'ro' for external)
do nelci re lo ci cutci pe mi.
It'll be interesting to see what has happened over the years (L3)  For one thing, I suppose, you apparently don't need 'lo' (L3), though in this case it won't make a difference.
In any case, the proportional bit is not only longer but not what you mean to say, since it only gives the proportions but the original gives exact numbers.
best leave 'loi' out of it snce it is still contentious (and usually means collectively anyhow). 'lo' is officially indeterminate between collective and distributive, so always safe --  except when it is important to be precise and the context doesn't do it.
So far as I can tell, xorlo does not get rid of internal quantifiers to tell the number of things referred to; 'lo broda' just no longer refers to all the broda in the world.

---

From: djandus <jan...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, August 23, 2011 1:04:17 PM
Subject: [lojban] proportions

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/Tpcoz7Rop0YJ.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[Pierre Abbat]

On Tuesday 23 August 2011 14:04:17 djandus wrote:
> So, I just wanted to know, what's the official way to do a few quantifying
> things right now?
>
> How can I translate each of the following into Lojban:
> 1. You like two of my shoes.
> 2. You like both of my shoes.
> 3. You like two of my three shoes.

.i do nelci re lo mi cutci
.i do nelci ro re lo mi cutci
.i do nelci re lo mi ci cutci

> The first one is a bit of confirmation. I would use 1:{do nelci re cutci pe
> mi}.
>
> I have two main concerns between the other two, with so many little
> questions on the side.
>
> For one, is one way to do proportions 3:{do nelci refi'uci lo cutci pe mi}?
> If so, what about implications of 2/3 of a group of 6 or 9? Is that an
> issue with {loi}? Can I get rid of lo in the last bit, by {refi'uci lo
> cutci} == {refi'uci cutci}? Is there an easier way? Are there alternate
> ways? What's the point of lo's inner quantifier, and can it help with
> anything like this? (This was demonstrated in "ancient" texts, but not it
> post-xorlo writings, so what happens now?) And, while I'm at it, does using
> {loi} here instead of {lo} make any explicit difference past an implication
> of {do} liking the group distributively?

do nelci refi'uci loi cutci pe mi. If you said "lo", that would mean 2/3 of a
shoe, out of however many shoes you have. If you said "do nelci cifi'ure loi
me cutci", and you have 6 shoes, that means I like 9 of them.

Pierre
--
Jews use a lunisolar calendar; Muslims use a solely lunar calendar.

[djandus]

Thanks all for the awesome help!

However, something did raise a question:

Well, assuming 'lo mi cutci' is lost and gone forever (L3)

Umm... what did this side-statement mean? Are you referring to "lost" in the scope of this discussion, or in the scope of some grammar change I've missed?

I'm teaching a Lojban class right now, and want to be absolutely certain I haven't missed some discussion ridding Lojban of the {lo mi cutci} == {lo cutci pe mi} rule. 

[John E. Clifford]

Well, it was an assumption, brought on by everybody using the long forms rather than the short -- and my recollection that things like 'va' and 'ca' no longer seem to go in the slot after 'lo'. I'll be happy to find it is not gone.

Sent from my iPad

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/bEJQf-LNL6cJ.

[Pierre Abbat]

On Wednesday 31 August 2011 10:13:44 John E. Clifford wrote:
> Well, it was an assumption, brought on by everybody using the long forms
> rather than the short -- and my recollection that things like 'va' and 'ca'
> no longer seem to go in the slot after 'lo'. I'll be happy to find it is
> not gone.

There's nothing wrong with "lo va broda", "lo ca broda", "lo mi broda", or
even "lo mi va broda". If "va" is tagging something as a preposition, though,
it can't go between "lo" and "broda". You have to say "lo broda be va lo
mitre".

Pierre
--
.i toljundi do .ibabo mi'afra tu'a do
.ibabo damba do .ibabo do jinga
.icu'u la ma'atman.

[Michael Turniansky]

  Not I still use the short pe forms, and there is absolutely nothing with lo TENSE forms, either.  Not sure where you are seeing these forms disappearing?

           --gejyspa