From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat Jul 05 14:23:11 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Sat, 05 Jul 2008 14:23:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KFFDr-00045k-G3 for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2008 14:23:11 -0700 Received: from yw-out-1718.google.com ([74.125.46.155]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KFFDm-00045P-Vt for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2008 14:23:11 -0700 Received: by yw-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 5so742322ywm.46 for ; Sat, 05 Jul 2008 14:23:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=8SCyGb249y4pvvuXYSbNlND0YaO0Uvl1k6K/7RvwlKI=; b=v9ScVJGGfRNK9N1zAXXJ4icT0ZxjVfSEqK/42oRWqOtVi25rQjM0c2Scy83BqT0JtP stwbeJVgY+wHwskkI+hO1F8ZSma/y66hfWvhmK94FLj3JFzPb1Dbuwc1zI9Zp0rA+K0Q FkWCrWwk3TuxrfH5MUpIhyF6GiKO2PGO8lVEk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:references; b=GHfmRTfsyj6wEwEsfz9v+uzGnGZYm2G6j+7apm4cI9fj83ZQrxk0g19ZbLJPtbOlxo ll8uhUVPCCZVNR2bJi6tO5+M7f4SI9FOe1zuxaNPn3wRVr+iyopFsUTyjcFi23jTQxap 7lflcJUs8wyf3p3qPAOF0vaTvKeRWnqtgqDwQ= Received: by 10.151.114.6 with SMTP id r6mr4723461ybm.181.1215292980822; Sat, 05 Jul 2008 14:23:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.83.6 with HTTP; Sat, 5 Jul 2008 14:23:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 17:23:00 -0400 From: "Brett Williams" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: mass vs. individual articles In-Reply-To: <737b61f30807042000x5e56cc57k8722d3fff878bf6b@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_17746_24095194.1215292980843" References: <914168.34348.qm@web58911.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <925d17560804131127k588f4fbctf9f8f1359ea06b25@mail.gmail.com> <737b61f30807042000x5e56cc57k8722d3fff878bf6b@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 679 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: mungojelly@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners ------=_Part_17746_24095194.1215292980843 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On 7/4/08, Chris Capel wrote: > > > What would you say the meaning of {le re nanla cu tsamau li'o} is? The > same as {ro le re nanla li'o}, even given xorlo? Or indeterminate? It says that there's some referent who's stronger, and that a description of the referent is "two boys." It's very indeterminate; it could be a goldfish. (But it probably isn't-- it's probably two boys.) As the inverse of the below, I believe there's a (weak) implication that the referent is NOT a mass (since you could have as easily said "lei"), and that each of the two boys does the action separately. On a related note, would you say {lei nanla} would more strongly > suggest that there are {su'o re nanla} than does {le nanla}? By its nature, no. In the real world, compared to the other choices on hand, probably a weak implication in many situations. The archetypal situation where a mass is used is where there are not only more than one of the described thing involved, but you couldn't rightfully say that each of the individuals were in the relationship on their own. So I think in most circumstances it (weakly) implies not only that there were su'ore, but also that ONLY the mass and NOT the individuals in that mass were in the stated relation. pe'i ru'e .i .io mu'o mi'e .selkik. ------=_Part_17746_24095194.1215292980843 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline
On 7/4/08, Chris Capel <pdf23ds@gmail.com> wrote:

What would you say the meaning of {le re nanla cu tsamau li'o} is? The
same as {ro le re nanla li'o}, even given xorlo? Or indeterminate?
 
 
It says that there's some referent who's stronger, and that a description of the referent is "two boys."  It's very indeterminate; it could be a goldfish.  (But it probably isn't-- it's probably two boys.)
 
As the inverse of the below, I believe there's a (weak) implication that the referent is NOT a mass (since you could have as easily said "lei"), and that each of the two boys does the action separately.
 
 

On a related note, would you say {lei nanla} would more strongly
suggest that there are {su'o re nanla} than does {le nanla}?


By its nature, no.  In the real world, compared to the other choices on hand, probably a weak implication in many situations. 
 
The archetypal situation where a mass is used is where there are not only more than one of the described thing involved, but you couldn't rightfully say that each of the individuals were in the relationship on their own.  So I think in most circumstances it (weakly) implies not only that there were su'ore, but also that ONLY the mass and NOT the individuals in that mass were in the stated relation.
 
pe'i ru'e 
.i
.io mu'o
mi'e .selkik.

------=_Part_17746_24095194.1215292980843--