Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of felipeg.assis@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c05::236 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4001:c05::236;
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2014 14:29:51 -0200
Message-ID: <CALMa68oAyuVK3+6CqrJ6ns7akoeSUMhXY5OWW0aAZQSAHFh=8g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [lojban] [oz] {lo prenu cu cmamau lo makcu}
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Felipe_Gon=E7alves_Assis?= <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba6e8d1c0b23a104ef3ba7d8
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

--90e6ba6e8d1c0b23a104ef3ba7d8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

The full sentence is
  {lo prenu cu cmamau lo makcu poi dy ke'a se slabu}.
{lo prenu} refers to what turns out to be three Munchkins and the Witch of
the North, and dy is Dorothy.

The plausible interpretation is of course distributive,
  {ro lo prenu cu cmamau ro lo makcu}.

But, if predicates are to be defined on plural variables, shouldn't the
original sentence mean that the bunch of prenu is, collectively, smaller
than the bunch of makcu?

Is the translation wrong? Or is the sentence ambiguous? If so, how to
unambiguously convey the collective interpretation?

Keep notice that {cmamau} is unusual in that it is not cumulative in x1.
Also, it is not distributive in x2.

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--90e6ba6e8d1c0b23a104ef3ba7d8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div>The full sentence is<br></div>=A0 {lo prenu cu c=
mamau lo makcu poi dy ke&#39;a se slabu}.<br></div><div>{lo prenu} refers t=
o what turns out to be three Munchkins and the Witch of the North, and dy i=
s Dorothy.<br>

<br>The plausible interpretation is of course distributive,<br>=A0 {ro lo p=
renu cu cmamau ro lo makcu}.<br><br>But, if predicates are to be defined on=
 plural variables, shouldn&#39;t the original sentence mean that the bunch =
of prenu is, collectively, smaller than the bunch of makcu?<br>

<br>Is the translation wrong? Or is the sentence ambiguous? If so, how to u=
nambiguously convey the collective interpretation?<br><br>Keep notice that =
{cmamau} is unusual in that it is not cumulative in x1. Also, it is not dis=
tributive in x2.<br>

<br>mu&#39;o<br>mi&#39;e .asiz.<br><br></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br />

--90e6ba6e8d1c0b23a104ef3ba7d8--