From jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU  Sat Mar  6 22:45:20 2010
Date:         Sat, 20 May 1995 19:05:48 EDT
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: TEXT: le gunse ku joi le lorxu
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
X-From-Space-Date: Sat May 20 19:04:39 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
Message-ID: <20kalqQAYyN.A.s8E.Au0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

la dilyn cusku di'e
>  > I don't think that's quite right.  Because of the {le lorpanzi}, each
>  > of the referents of {lei betfu be le lorpanzi} is a mass of stomachs,
>  > each belonging to just one fox cub.  (Naturally, each mass of stomachs
>  > will have only one stomach.)  So this means just the same thing as
>  > {co'a spoja fa le betfu be le lorpanzi}.  I think.

i babo la dilyn cusku di'e
> No, no, that's wrong, and Goran is right.

No, no, that was right, and now you are wrong.  :)

> {roloi broda} means the
> mass of all things that can fit in the first terbridi of {broda}.

Right.

> In
> this case, the selbri is {betfu be le lorpanzi}, and there are exactly
> five things that can fit in this place;

If there are five lorpanzi, then there are exactly zero things that
can fit in that place. Nothing is a stomach of each of the five cubs.

> {roloi betfu be le lorpanzi}
> (or {lei betfu be le lorpanzi}) would be the mass of all of them.

An empty mass.

> Yes? (And yes, Jorge, I think {lei betfu be lei lorpanzi} is fine; I
> just like knowing different ways of saying things.)

Here's one way then: {lei betfu be pa le lorpanzi}

In this case it is true that there are five things that fit the selbri
{betfu be pa le [mu] lorpanzi}.

> I can modify this to show what I was trying to say before (with
> "exactly one book on the table"):  sentences with {.e} cannot always
> be expanded into a number of sentences connected with {.ije}.

That's true. It can only be done if {.e} is joining two sumti at the
highest level of the sentence, i.e. two arguments of the main selbri.

Jorge