Lidz et al. (2011) propose that meanings provide canonical verification
strategies and argue for specifying *most *in terms of cardinality and
subtraction. We provide cross-linguistic support for these hypotheses by
testing two Cantonese determiners: *daai-do-sou*, which has a proportional
meaning like *most*, and *zeoi-do*, which has a “largest subset” meaning.
When asked to evaluate statements with respect to displays, both
determiners led participants to rely on their Approximate Number System.
But whereas *zeoi-do *biased a strategy of serial comparison, *daai-do-sou*,
like *most*, biased superset subtraction. Even in cases where either
procedure could be successfully deployed, participants nonetheless used
distinct strategies.