Message-Id: <m0rGFmv-00007DC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 10 Dec 1994 00:34:42 +0000
Reply-To:     ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: plural
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Fri, 09 Dec 94 18:42:44 EST.)
Content-Length: 1238
Lines: 29

Jorge:
> > > How do you say "the men carried the piano" in Lojban WITHOUT making
> > > the individual/group distinction?
> >
> > I don't think you can avoid making this distinction. BUT "lei nanmu
> > carried the piano" can have a distributive interpretation, since the
> > mass inherits all properties of its members.
>
> If {lei nanmu pu bevri le pipno} can have the distributive interpretation,
> then there is no way to clearly express the group interpretation.

Yes: it was for this very reason that I not long ago suggested stipulating
that masses don't inherit all properties from their constituents. But
that is not how things are at present.

> Let's be a bit more concrete: {lei nanmu pu paroi bevri le pipno} claims
> that the piano was carried only once. How do you get a distributive
> interpretation from that?

I can't. What if it was reroi? It could be distributive then, maybe.

Suppose we see a mass of people "loi prenu". If we say "loi prenu
ku muroi speni koha", are we necessarily describing a polygamous situation
where koha jointly married & remarried the mass of people five times?
Or could it be that koha married five times, serially monogamously,
and that each spouse came from the mass of loi prenu?

---
And