From jorge@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx Wed Apr 21 05:27:52 1999 X-Digest-Num: 123 Message-ID: <44114.123.705.959273824@eGroups.com> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:27:52 -0300 From: "=?us-ascii?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" "do" is indeterminate whether it is a mass or individuals, per Chap 6 >section 13 of the book. Then that solves it for personal pronouns. {coi ro do} is meaningful and we can say {ro ma'a} for "each of us" without the need of {lu'a}. >I think that it plain does not work specifically for "lei". "lei broda" >need not be a massification of a plural set; it is a single mass, and the >components are of unknown cardinality. Plurality is not really a problem. Obviously if you said {re lei broda} you would mean {re lei su'ore broda}, but this is no different than {re le broda} meaning {re le su'ore broda}. > On the other hand, with "lei" >unlike "loi" there could be a plural number of masses. With 10 people, I >think you could have "mu lei re prenu". I think that with {lei} you should only have one mass, just as with loi, but it doesn't matter much. As you say, you can always use {le} in these cases. Where I do find it useful that the quantifier should determine mass/individual is for the personal pronouns, and this is already the case so I'm happy. I wonder what happens with other pronouns... For example: ko'a goi lei ci nanmu cu vecnu lo xirma mi lo rupnu be li cinono The three men sold a horse to me for an amount of $300. i mi pleji fi ro ko'a fe lo rupnu be li panono I paid to each of them an amount of $100. Is that correct? I need the mass in the first sentence because without it I would be saying that I bought three horses, one from each men, but I want to say that I bought one horse from the three of them. I need the individuals in the second sentence because I am paying them $100 each, not $100 for them to split. Does {ro ko'a} do the job I want there, or do I need {ro lu'a ko'a}? I think {ro ko'a} should work, just like for personal pronouns. co'o mi'e xorxes