Message-Id: <m0rGY6l-00007DC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 10 Dec 1994 15:13:07 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: plural
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 2613
Lines: 60

And:
> 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.

It's hard to say how things are at present. If the mass inherits all the
properties, then the fractionators make no sense whatsoever.

> > 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.

No, it couldn't. {lei nanmu pu reroi bevri le pipno} means "in two
occasions, the men carried the piano". It could well be that one of the
men was giving directions while the other was doing the actual carrying,
but then what you are saying is that the directions were part of the
carrying, ie you are using the predicate "bevri" in a more loose way
(perfectly acceptable in my opinion).

In any case, {le re nanmu pu bevri le pipno} is not just a more explicit
rendering of {lei re nanmu pu bevri le pipno}. They mean quite different
things, and you are forced to choose which one you want to say.

On the other hand, {le re nanmu pu bevri le pipno} _is_ a more explicit
rendering of {le nanmu pu bevri le pipno}. They both can mean the same, and
you are not forced to say the number of men each of which carries the piano.


> 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?

If you are talking about the mass you are seeing, you'd say "lei prenu",
"loi prenu" is nonspecific.

{loi prenu cu muroi speni ko'a} means: "on five occasions, there was a
portion of the mass of all people married to ko'a".

The portion could be a single person on each of the five occasions
(not necessarily always the same one), or sometimes one and other times
more than one, but if it was always one, I would use {lo prenu}.

{lei prenu cu muroi speni ko'a} means: "on five occasions, the persons
were/are married to ko'a".

Again {lei prenu} could be one person, (in this case it has to be the same
one the five times), but if it was one it would be more natural to say
{le prenu}. It is always the same mass that is married to ko'a each of
the five times.

> Or could it be that koha married five times, serially monogamously,
> and that each spouse came from the mass of loi prenu?

That would be {le mu prenu cu speni ko'a} = "Each of the five persons
married koha".


Jorge