From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Mon May 29 00:57:55 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3126 ; Mon, 29 May 95 00:57:52 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Fri, 26 May 95 21:42:29 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa15852; 26 May 95 22:41 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1968; Fri, 26 May 95 17:39:25 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2058; Fri, 26 May 1995 17:39:25 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 14:19:24 -0600 Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Re: quantifiers on sumti - late response To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9505262241.aa15852@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R >Probably it can be understood that way in those cases, but it could cause >confusion. For example {re le gunma} means "two of the masses", which is >different from {re lu'a le gunma}, "two components of the mass". In the >case of {lei}, {loi}, {do}, etc there is a single mass, and so a quantifier >greater than one doesn't make sense and can probably be understood to mean >the components, but when the sumti refers to more than one mass, there >could be trouble. .i jimpe .i drata se stidi fa la'edi'e: .i lu<< re gunma be lo gunka cu zbasu le ti dinju >>li'u (to zoi gy.[two groups of workers built this building]gy. toi) cu simsa .e'u lu<< re loi gunka cu zbasu le ti dinju >>li'u .i ku'i da nabmi .i pe'i na cumki fi'o valsi zo lei .uinai