Message-Id: <m0rCvqo-00007FC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Wed, 30 Nov 1994 15:30:05 EST
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: lohe, lehe & ka
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Content-Length: 833
Lines: 18

And:
> Well, if "loi cipnrdodo" is "Mr Dodo" (i.e. the category construed as
> having only one member, or as with all members being the same)
> then I guess piro loi C. is the whole of Mr Dodo and pimu loi
> c. is half of Mr D. You see half a dodo and say to me "ko viska
> pimu loi cipnrdodo".

That's definitely not how I understand {loi}, and it doesn't seem a
useful distinction. When would you use {loi} with its default
quantification? When you see a little piece of dodo?

For {lei} it is even clearer, because the inside quantification is
more useful: {lei ci prenu} is a mass of three people, i.e. the three
taken as a single entity. You can say {lei ci prenu pu citka lo cipnrdodo}
= "The three people ate a dodo", which is different from {le ci prenu
pu citka lo cipnrdodo} = "Each of the three people ate a dodo".

Jorge