From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Tue Apr  4 19:52:28 1995
Date:         Tue, 4 Apr 1995 13:22:01 EDT
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: More about scopes
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Message-ID: <DewzeGIYjCI.A.BRB.K40kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

And:
> > > (4)     le ci nanmu cu bevri pa tanxe goi ko'a
> > >         Each of the three men carries it, one box.
>
> In this case, I don't think (4) shd  entail they all carried the same
> box. Subsequent uses of koha will remain within the scope of le ci
> nanmu, and it would not be a problem for there to be three boxes.

Hmm...  I'm not happy with that mainly because {pa tanxe goi ko'a} is
assigning up to three referents to ko'a, which looks odd.  The {goi}
assignment becomes dependent on the whole context, rather than on the
single sumti to which it attaches.

In general, assigning more than one referent to ko'a, I think is to ask
for trouble.  (I don't have problems with single plural referents, just
many referents, whether singular or plural.)

A related question:

le ci nanmu cu prami ri

Does that mean "each of the three men loves each of the three men", or
"each of the three men loves himself"?  What about with {vo'a} instead
of {ri}?

Jorge