From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Fri May 26 21:59:43 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3125 ; Fri, 26 May 95 21:59:42 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Fri, 26 May 95 19:30:25 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa24161; 26 May 95 20:30 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2169; Fri, 26 May 95 15:28:08 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2313; Fri, 26 May 1995 15:17:46 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 15:21:56 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: <9505262030.aa24161@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R la kris cusku di'e > 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. 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. Jorge