From cbogart@QUETZAL.COM Sat Mar 6 22:45:10 2010 Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 10:51:58 -0600 From: Chris Bogart Subject: Re: quantifiers on sumti - late response To: Bob LeChevalier X-From-Space-Date: X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Message-ID: la xorxes cu ciska cusku di'e: >The problem with {do} is its individual/mass ambivalence. While {ro do} >suggests that {do} refers to one or more individuals, other uses seem >to suggest otherwise. For example, what does {do bevri lo tanxe} mean? >"Each of you carries a box" or "You all together carry a box"? > >To be consistent, {do} should always be a mass (because mi'o, ma'a, >etc. are defined as masses, not individuals), and the proper way of saying >"each of you" and "two of you" should be {ro lu'a do} and {re lu'a do}. Given the way we use masses, quantifiers greater than one don't seem to mean much -- "re lei prenu" is apparently one of those cases where it's grammatical but doesn't mean much. Would it be appropriate then to define "[Quant > 1] [mass]" to be shorthand for "[Quant > 1] lu'a [mass]" so that "re do" means "re lu'a do" (two of you) and "repa lei respa" means "repa lu'a lei respa" (21 of the in-mind mass of reptiles)? The form is probably going to be used, and the meaning is quite understandable. ____ Chris Bogart \ / ftp://ftp.csn.net/cbogart/html/homepage.html Quetzal Consulting \/ cbogart@quetzal.com