Date: Sun, 09 Apr 1995 15:53:26 +0100
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: More about scopes
In-reply-to: (Your message of Sat, 08 Apr 95 16:21:46 EDT.)
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Message-id: <01HPHSWXTICK0000B9@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 756
Lines: 23

> > 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