From ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk  Sat Mar  6 22:56:15 2010
Date:         Sun, 9 Apr 1995 15:53:26 +0100
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Subject:      Re: More about scopes
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
X-From-Space-Date: Sun Apr  9 15:38:51 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
Message-ID: <U0z3INvxpjK.A.oSB.P40kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

> > As you say, "ro" is the default
> > quantifier for "ko'a".
>
> And also of mi, do, mi'o, etc... I think I would have preferred
> piro for all of these. A single mass referent is so much simpler than
> several single referents.
>
> 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.

---
And