Message-Id: <m0ql0i2-00005LC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Wed, 14 Sep 1994 15:30:27 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: TECH: RE: do djica loi ckafi je'i tcati
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Content-Length: 1261
Lines: 26

la ~mark cusku di'e

> I recall we went through this discussion once before; in fact it was
> spurred on by a similar discussion regarding TLI Loglan regarding taxis
> (mentioned by Randall Holmes here, I see).  The answer there (our analogous
> version of JCB's I think, and I liked it) was "loi tanxe".  This works.  I
> need [some part of] the mass of things that are boxes.

I don't think this has to do with massification. Say you want one box, any
box but just one. You can't say {pa loi tanxe}, for that would be one mass
of boxes, whatever that means. Besides, {mi nitcu loi tanxe} still claims
that there exists some part of the mass of boxes such that I need it.

And what if you really are talking about some part of a mass. For example
{mi cpedu loi plise}: "I ask for [some part of] the mass of apples", i.e.
there exists a part of the mass of apples such that I'm asking for it. How
do you distiguish it from the different "I ask for any apple"?

> I don't think we need a new quantifier for this one;
> massification works (unless massification was rethought and redefined since
> the last time this question came through and I missed it).

I don't know if it was redefined, but massification as I understand it
doesn't seem to help here.

Jorge