From @gate.demon.co.uk,@uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Thu May 25 23:04:28 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3104 ; Thu, 25 May 95 23:04:24 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Thu, 25 May 95 21:38:33 GMT Received: from gate.demon.co.uk by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa18652; 25 May 95 22:37 +0100 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by gate.demon.co.uk id aa08448; 25 May 95 18:25 GMT-60:00 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3339; Thu, 25 May 95 13:20:29 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7837; Thu, 25 May 1995 12:58:58 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 13:01:39 EDT Reply-To: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Subject: Re: quantifiers on sumti - late response X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9505251825.aa08448@gate.demon.co.uk> Status: R la djan cusku di'e > la .and. cusku di'e > > > How does this work? Are {suo do} and {ro do} okay as sumti? > > They are, indeed: "at least one of you" and "all of you" respectively. > You can precede any sumti whatever with a quantifier. 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}. > To settle another minor crux: after "da" and friends have been bound, > a further quantification is a local subselection, as with most other sumti: > > so'a da poi gerku cu se denci .ije so'i da batci > Almost-all Xs which are-dogs have-teeth, and most-of them > (i.e., most of the ones which have teeth) bite. > > Here "so'a da" binds "da" to almost all dogs, and "so'i da" subselects > most (not literally a majority, but just vaguely "a lot") of those. > If "da" is used again, it means "so'a da" not "so'i da". So what does this mean: so'a da poi gerku cu se denci ije so'i da batci da Almost all dogs have teeth, and most of those bite (themselves?/ those that bite?/those with teeth?) To me it means "themselves", which doesn't agree with your rule (nor with what you say it doesn't mean). I think the last {da} doesn't have a quantifier. If you put one there it changes the meaning. Jorge