Re: mo'e

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

> 
> la lojbab cusku di'e

na go'i. i la djan. go'e

> > >Is {mo'e li ci} the same as {ci} as a quantifier? Or is it the number
> > >of numbers three, like supposedly {mo'e pa plise} is the number of apples
> > >in "one apple"?
> >
> > Yes!
> 
> I hate that answer when I ask "A or something incompatible with A?"

Sorry.  In my dialect the answer "Yes" to "A or B" means "A".  I know this
causes miscommunications, so I try to suppress it, without total success.
(What's worse is that there are some dialects, I'm told, where "Yes" = "B".)

> Ok. In that case, {mo'e lo namcu} is "some number", and {mo'e ci namcu}
> is meaningless, because {mo'e} takes a referent of one number, not several
> referents.

Not meaningless.  It means "three numbers" considered as a number.

> > The second is effectively true, because when we add 'one apple' and
> > 'one apple' to get 'two apples' we are in effect adding the number of apples
> > in 'one apple'.
> 
> This doesn't make sense to me. If {mo'e li ci} is the number 3, then
> {mo'e lo plise} has to be a number of type apple, not the number of apples
> in {lo plise}.

"mo'e lo plise" is a number of type "apple", but the rules for addition of
such numbers aren't defined.  By default, I would assume that adding numbers
of type "apple" is isomorphic to adding apples.

> What do you get when you add 'one number' and 'one number'? 'Two numbers' or
> 'one number'? (Please don't answer "yes"  :)

You probably get "two numbers", but I am willing to accept that adding
"one cloud" and "one cloud" gives "one cloud".  Typed numbers can escape
from the usual number system in various random ways.

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.