Return-Path: Received: from kantti.helsinki.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0ry0ei-0009acC; Sun, 9 Apr 95 20:20 EET DST Received: from fiport.funet.fi (fiport.funet.fi [128.214.109.150]) by kantti.helsinki.fi (8.6.11p1+Emil1.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id UAA28502 for ; Sun, 9 Apr 1995 20:20:12 +0300 Received: from LISTSERV.FUNET.FI (LISTSERV@FIPORT) by FIPORT.FUNET.FI (PMDF V4.3-13 #2494) id <01HP55MLAVOG004SUA@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>; Sun, 09 Apr 1995 17:20:00 +0200 (EET) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 1995 16:21:46 -0400 (EDT) From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: More about scopes Sender: Lojban list To: Veijo Vilva Reply-to: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Message-id: <01HP55MO68W6004SUA@FIPORT.FUNET.FI> X-Envelope-to: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1622 Lines: 46 la djan cusku di'e > Check out the sumti paper at > ftp://ftp.cs.yale.edu/pub/lojban/draft/refgrammar/sumti, which documents > all of these points in Section 13. So it does! I didn't remember that part. > 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. The paper also says: >>Reflexive pro-sumti ("vo'a", "vo'e", "vo'i", "vo'o", "vo'u") refer to the >>same referents as sumti filling other places in the same bridi, with the >>effect that the same thing is referred to twice: >> >>13.4) le cribe cu batci vo'a >> The bear bites what-is-in-the-x1-place. >> The bear bites itself. But what is {le ci cribe cu batci vo'a}? Is it "each of the three bears bites itself" or "each of the three bears bites each of the same three bears"? It would seem that the second one, but I'm not sure. For each bear, what-is-in-the-x1-place of the relationship is itself, but the sentence is talking about either three or nine relationships, not only one. And how do we say the other? Jorge