I think "lo'i prenu cu cusku" means the set is doing the expressing, not the people. I don't understand what the colors of the people and speech bubbles mean, especially in the mass and set examples.

The ones for "lo" should be:

(ro) lo pa prenu cu cusku
ro lo re prenu cu cusku
ro lo ci prenu cu cusku

The inner quantifier tells how many prenu you are talking about. The outer tells how many of them cusku. You could add a picture where just two of them cusku and the third has no bubble, then that would be "re lo ci prenu cu cusku". In the first case, since there is only one prenu, the quantifier "ro" is really useless.

The first for "loi", "loi ci prenu cu cusku", without the "pa", seems right. Prsumably they are all saying something together. Outer quantifiers on "loi" are usually of the fractional kind.

For the second picture I would rather go with "lo re gunma be lo ci prenu cu cusku" to avoid confusion. I would recommend avoiding outer quantifiers on "loi".

As for "lo'i", I would agree with Hussell that sets don't say anything.

>>1072

> The first for "loi", "loi ci prenu cu cusku", without the "pa", seems right. Prsumably they are all saying something together. Outer quantifiers on "loi" are usually of the fractional kind.

So, in "pa loi ci prenu cu cusku", only one prenu does cusku?

> As for "lo'i", I would agree with Hussell that sets don't say anything.

Oh, my bad. Then, how about "cusku simxu" for "lo'i ci prenu"?

>>1067

> I don't understand what the colors of the people and speech bubbles mean, especially in the mass and set examples.

In the mass examples, three prenu, mixed, cusku together; one cooperative bubble from each mass. And it doesn't matter whether or not the individuals share some ontological quality from which a set might arise. prenu of different kinds (i.e. the blue, red, orange bodies) or prenu of the same kind (i.e. the green body) ... they can be a mass anyway and relate to a predicate as such.

My idea for "lo'i" was this:
In the first one, three prenu - who share the quality of uttering the same thing (i.e. the green bubble) and therefore form a set - cusku. In the second one, again three prenu - who share the quality of being the same thing (i.e. the green body) and therefore form a set - cusku.

As realized above, I was wrong about the x1 of "cusku", which could not be a set.

>>1073

> So, in "pa loi ci prenu cu cusku", only one prenu does cusku?

I don't think there is any consensus about what a quantifier in front of "loi" means. My personal opinion is that "loi" should not be quantified, as quantifiers just nullify the purpose of "loi". ("Fractional quantifiers" are OK there, but they are not true predicate logic quantifiers.)

> Then, how about "cusku simxu" for "lo'i ci prenu"?

I don't use set gadri, but those who do might approve.

> My idea for "lo'i" was this:
> In the first one, three prenu - who share the quality of uttering the same thing (i.e. the green bubble) and therefore form a set - cusku. > In the second one, again three prenu - who share the quality of being the same thing (i.e. the green body) and therefore form a set - cusku.

I had missed the significance of color. In any case, the members of a set need not share any property (other than being a member of that set). So you can't expect that just the use of "lo'i" will suggest a common property for the members.

>>1077

> My personal opinion is that "loi" should not be quantified, as quantifiers just nullify the purpose of "loi".

How? I don't quite understand the problem of taking "re loi ci prenu" as "two masses".

> ("Fractional quantifiers" are OK there, but they are not true predicate logic quantifiers.)

What are "fractional quantifiers"?

> In any case, the members of a set need not share any property (other than being a member of that set).

What makes something a member of a set?

>>1080

>How? I don't quite understand the problem of taking "re loi ci prenu" as "two masses".

The function of "loi", as I understand it, is to indicate that the referents of the sumti participate together in whatever relationship we are claiming about them. Using a quantifier to bring in new participants (in this case, not just three people but more than one group with three people each) gives "loi" a new function, that I prefer not to give it. The inner quantifier of "LE (quantifier) prenu" should always give the total number of prenu in the universe of discourse.

> What are "fractional quantifiers"?

piro, pisu'o, piso'i, etc.
"the whole of", "some part of", "much of", ...

> What makes something a member of a set?

Just the definition of the set. I you have any (finite) number of things a, b, c, ..., n, there is always one and only one set that contains each and every one of them as its members, which can be repreasented as {a, b, c, ..., n}. Those things don't need to share any special property, the set of them always exists.

>>1082

> The function of "loi", as I understand it, is to indicate that the referents of the sumti participate together in whatever relationship we are claiming about them. Using a quantifier to bring in new participants (in this case, not just three people but more than one group with three people each) gives "loi" a new function, that I prefer not to give it. The inner quantifier of "LE (quantifier) prenu" should always give the total number of prenu in the universe of discourse.

Seems like a nice generalization to me. loi forms groups out of the referents, lo keeps them as individuals.

pimu loi re prenu == half of a pair of people
piro loi re prenu == the whole of a pair of people
pa loi re prenu == one pair of people
re loi re prenu == two pairs of people

re lo re prenu == two of two people
pa lo re prenu == one of two people
piro lo re prenu == a whole person out of two people
pimu lo re prenu == half a person out of two people

You could then say things like "bi loi re prenu cu cimei tuple bajyjvi" for "8 pairs of people competed in the three-legged race.", or "piro lo re prenu cu zirpu" when one of two people got dipped in gentian violet head-first up to the waist and the other feet-first up to the waist (a situation which is more common than you might suppose). :)

>>1111

It is in fact the interpretation I propose here: http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK+Section%3A+gadri

lo mulno kardygri cu gunma lo vo loi paci karda
A full deck consists of four groups of thirteen cards.

But I was never very happy with it, and I wouldn't propose it now. I would use instead, for example:

lo mulno kardygri cu gunma lo vo karda pacimei

bi prenu remei cu cimei tuple bajyjvi

>>1114

Ok, so here's another picture, which I hope illustrates your "mei" solution along with the "loi" one.

>>1117

I liked the pictures with cusku better. A quantifier is not very meaningful without a bridi to quantify. I assume the implicit bridi is something like "pa lo re prenu cu xekri", "ro lo re prenu cu xekri". But what is the difference in each one being black or the two being black together?

"lo pa re mei prenu" is "a twelvesome type of person".

>>1118

> "lo pa re mei prenu" is "a twelvesome type of person".

Wow, I can't believe I missed that. I guess this will be solved if I just bring "prenu" before "remei", like you did in "bi prenu remei"?

> But what is the difference in each one being black or the two being black together?

As I understand it:
When massified, individuality within the mass becomes irrelevant to the predicate. If 50% of "lo prenu remei" is black, we can assume that the 50%-blackness can come from any portion of the de-individuated bodies within the mass. There is no "each one/prenu" in "lo prenu remei" that can individually relate to the predicate. The picture in question shows a few of many possible distribution of 50%-blackness within "lo prenu remei".

>>1117

"pimu lo re prenu" means "0.5 of 2 people", not "half of each of two people". If "papimu lo re prenu" were on your diagram, 3 halves would be black and 1 half would be white. The same error exists in the picture for "pimu lo re loi re prenu".