From dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU  Sat Mar  6 22:44:55 2010
Date:         Sat, 27 May 1995 16:39:34 -0400
From: "Dylan P. Thurston" <dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: quantifiers on sumti - late response
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
X-From-Space-Date: 
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
Message-ID: <eZcjtpYSPWC.A.0kE.nt0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk writes:
 > There are differences between masses and myopic singulars, as I'm
 > sure you're aware.

What is a "myopic singular"?

 > while {ci da stedu loi prenu}
 > can be true, if the person mass contains three people.

Is {ci da stedu loi prenu} right, or would it have to be {piro loi cida
stedu loi prenu} or {lo cimei stedu loi prenu}?  Is each of the heads,
individually, a head of all three?

 > > > Since there is no point in using quantifiers with
 > > > loe, that would leave {re do} unambiguously meaning "two of you".
 > > Yes. Can you accept {mi nitcu re lo'e tanxe} on the same grounds?
 > > i.e. "I need two of Mr Box"?
 >
 > Well, I accept it as much as I accept {re loi tanxe} or {re la xorxes
 > jambias}.

I'm a little bit more wary of {re lo'e tanxe} than the other two.  Does
it mean "two typical boxes" or "two Platonic ideals for a box"?

 > > > Ah. {lo broda} is {lo suo broda} and {lohi broda} is {lohi ro broda}?
 > > No, {lo broda} is {lo ro broda} and yes, {lo'i broda} is {lo'i ro broda}.
 > > Even more explicitly {lo broda} is {su'o lo ro broda} and {lo'i broda}
 > > is {piro lo'i ro broda}.
 >
 > So what is "a set of boxes"? {pisuho lohi tanxe}?

That works, I think.  How about {lo se cmima be lo tanxe} or {lo'i su'o
lo tanxe}?

--Dylan