Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 05:59:44 -0500
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Message-Id: <199412131059.AA13130@access4.digex.net>
To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject: Re: plural
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: RO


>Good example! {le prenu cu citka le plise} means "each of the people
>ate each of the apples". Each person ate each of the 5 apples, either an
>impossibility or a disgusting scene :)
>
>On the other hand, {lei prenu cu citka lei plise} means "the people
>ate the apples", without saying what person ate what apple(s).

No.  I think you are attaching too much significance to default quantifiers,
which work like the space-time reference - they are applicable only so far
as context demands.

{le prenu cu citka le plise} means "the people ate the apples" with little
more significance than the English has.  {lei prenu cu citka lei plise} 
also translates exactly the same way, only less - since English does not
distinguish specific mass nouns from specific count nouns, and we decide 
which is whhich based on our knowledge of the lexicon.  But "the deer ate
the grass" may come close to the neutrality of Lojban since you cannot tell
for sure by the nouns whether they are singular or plural/mass - grass is
usually a mass, but if you had 5 deer and 5 blades of grass and said that,
you would parallel the Lojban situation more or less.

I'm not sure where the default quantifiers are on "lei" at the moment - Cowan
disagreed with me on what we have said before, I think.  If "lei" is default
"pisu'o" then the difference between default quanbtifiers affects the 
semantics of the usage.  But whereas "lei" is explicitly a mass, "le" is not
necessarily explicitly individuals.

I would say that without explicitly identifying the quantifiers, "le prenu
cu tcidu le cukta" does not implicitly imply that each of the people read
everyt single word of each book - it suggests it, but does not mandate it.
(Actually since "le cukta" as a singualr reference is a mass concept, the 
implication "every word of" may be inapplicable even if you explicitly stated
the quantifiers.

>> (And do you assume that the "le'e" you 'should'
>> have used is always singular?)
>
>Not singular, but yes individual. That's why I wanted {xe'e}, so that
>I could have the opaque equivalent for masses too.

I think I can accept "le'e" as individual, but am not sure - what is 
le'e srasu or le'e gunma for that matter, if not a mass?

I have no idea on the acceptability standard for xe'e - I have not read the
"lo" thread, and Nora is still back in mid-Novemeber and falling further
behind.  You and your correspondents just are too prolific for mi (the mass
1st person).

lojbab