From lojbab@access.digex.net  Sat Mar  6 22:56:23 2010
Date:         Sun, 9 Apr 1995 22:47:17 +0100
From: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net> 
To: ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk
Subject: Re: More about scopes
X-From-Space-Date: Sun Apr  9 22:47:35 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
Message-ID: <UzSIs_G5ccM.A.iTB.X40kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

> 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