Message-Id: <m0qlsW4-00005LC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 17 Sep 1994 01:39:34 -0400
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: TECH: Any old thing whatsoever (was RE: do djica loi ckafi
              je'i
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1216
Lines: 24

JL>
JL>{mi nitcu loi tanxe} could well mean that the _whole_ mass of boxes is
JL>such that I need it, and since the properties of the individuals are
JL>also the properties of the mass, then as long as I need one of them
JL>I need the whole mass. Actually, there isn't one box such that I need it,
JL>but the mass has more properties than each individual, so we'd still be ok.
JL>

I THINK that the default quantifier "piso'u" on "loi" is needed BECAUSE
properties of different parts of the mass may not all be identical.
THus saying that "loi" has that quantifier means that the properties of
the individual are also the properties of PART of the mass.  The mass as
a whole can have self-contradictory properties.

This may answer you other question - liking "loi xrula" does not necessarily
mean that you like ALL flowers, but that you like some unspecified portion
of all flowers.  It is possible that you like ALL flowers and that you dislike
ALL flowers, if "ALL flowers" is piro loi xrula and you like at least one
flower and dislike at least one flower.

Statements about "piro loi ..." are just as universal as statements about
"ro da poi ...", but less useful because the opposite may also be true.

lojbab