Message-Id: <199412010016.AA08565@nfs1.digex.net>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Date: Wed Nov 30 19:16:28 1994
Subject:      Re: lohe, lehe & ka
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Nov 30 19:16:28 1994
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu

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