Return-Path: Received: from kantti.helsinki.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0s1Jaw-0009acC; Tue, 18 Apr 95 23:09 EET DST Received: from fiport.funet.fi (fiport.funet.fi [128.214.109.150]) by kantti.helsinki.fi (8.6.12+Emil1.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id XAA16734 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 23:09:57 +0300 Received: from LISTSERV.FUNET.FI (LISTSERV@FIPORT) by FIPORT.FUNET.FI (PMDF V4.3-13 #2494) id <01HPHQUN0YXC0000B9@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 20:09:53 +0200 (EET) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 01:54:50 -0400 From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: More about scopes Sender: Lojban list To: Veijo Vilva Reply-to: Logical Language Group Message-id: <01HPHW7DPVP00000B9@FIPORT.FUNET.FI> X-Envelope-to: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 717 Lines: 20 > The paper says: > > >>The personal pro-sumti may be interpreted in context as either representing > >>individuals or masses, so the implicit quantifier may be "pisu'o" rather > >>than "ro": in particular, "mi'o", "mi'a", "ma'a", and "do'o" specifically > >>represent mass combinations of the individuals (you and I, I and others, > >>you and I and others, you and others) that make them up. > > Then I don't see the point of {ro} being the default. {piro} seems much > better. I agree. {piro} makes more sense. ===== As the paper says, the pro-sumti may be either individuals or masses. If they are masses, then piro makes ssince. If they are individuals, then piro does not make sense, but "ro" does. lojbab