RE: Re: TECH vrici

[I.Alexander.bra0122@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK]

> su'osu'epa, if it is intended to mean "exactly one", is correct but
> pointless; the standard Lojban translation of "exactly one" is simply "pa".
> In other words, Lojban quantifiers are exact by default, rather than having
> a vague amount of exactness.  In particular:  a normal goat with four legs
> may be said to "have two legs" in English (since four exceeds two), but not
> in Lojban.  The whole point of "su'o" and "su'e" and (at the other end)
> "ji'i" is to make specific the use of imprecise numbers.

My problem with {su'osu'epa} is that it appears to mean
"at-least (at-most one)", in other words, any number whatsoever.
It is conceivable that there is a convention I haven't come across,
which makes it mean "(at-least and at-most) one", but you make that
sound unlikely.

The other side of this is how to emphasise the exactness when required.
{ba'ucu'i} doesn't sound right in this context.  Colin's {xa'i} might
be pressed into service ({pa xa'i no}), or we could maybe use {sei satci}.

Iain.