Message-Id: <199409142230.AA18688@nfs1.digex.net>
Date:         Wed, 14 Sep 1994 15:30:27 EDT
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: TECH: RE: do djica loi ckafi je'i tcati
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Status: RO

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