Message-Id: <199501142248.AA08897@nfs2.digex.net>
Date:         Sat, 14 Jan 1995 17:50:52 EST
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: plurality
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Status: RO

la pycyn cusku di'e

>         I confess I do not understand the problem central to the Plural
> thread.  Are we forced in Lojban to choose between distributive and
> collective descriptions?  Yes, we are, since we have to start off with a
> descriptor and that is what we have -- as well as some for individuals of
> various sorts.  So this contrast is an obligatory one in Lojban, as a
> grammatical category.  To a certain extent, it must then be a semantic
> obligatory one as well, since, except perhaps for _le_ and _la_, the
> referents of the various expressions are determined as to type.  (Well,
> individuals -- and maybe even groups of individuals -- can be treated as
> masses and a mass is an individual by some sort of definition, but they
> are basically different enough for this claim to be true at a commonsense
> level.) So, what follows that is worrisome?

The problem that I see (at least one of the problems), is that the default
quantifier of {lei} is {pisu'o} instead of {piro}.

I would like to understand, for example in:

        la djan e la meiris pu tcidu lei selcku
        John and Mary read (each some part of) the books.

that they both read the same thing, but with the present default
they may have read a different subset of the books, and not all the
books being referred to need have been read by them.

Also, with the current default, the sentence is different from:

        lei selcku pu se tcidu la djan e la meiris

Or for example:

        lei cukta cu se junta li reki'o poi se grake
        (Some part of) the books weigh(s) two kilograms.

means not that all the books together weigh 2 kg, but rather that some
part of them weighs that.

Jorge