From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Mon May 29 00:58:30 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3129 ; Mon, 29 May 95 00:57:59 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Fri, 26 May 95 22:57:53 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa14443; 26 May 95 23:57 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3245; Fri, 26 May 95 18:55:39 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1201; Fri, 26 May 1995 18:55:39 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 23:56:36 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: quantifiers on sumti - late response X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander In-Reply-To: (Your message of Thu, 25 May 95 13:01:39 EDT.) Message-ID: <9505262357.aa14443@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R Xorxes: > la djan 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}. I think the default should actually be an implicit {loe}, the "myopic singularizer". Since there is no point in using quantifiers with loe, that would leave {re do} unambiguously meaning "two of you". For "the mass of you" (not a terribly useful concept), {luo do}. > (BTW, the {ro}s are not wrong, but confuse the issue, since there is > only one of each set, maybe you meant {lo'i ro glezdi}, which is also > not needed because {ro} is the default.) Ah. {lo broda} is {lo suo broda} and {lohi broda} is {lohi ro broda}? > You could have said: [...] {naku roda glezdi gi'o nungle}. That's what I meant. > > People have learnt {du'u} and {du}. You can't go round messing with > > that. Allowing, say, {duo} as an allomorph of {du'u} would be better. > I wasn't really really serious with that suggestion (only somewhat > really serious), but I doubt that learning an allomorph would be any > easier. It's enough that we have to learn a lot of double rafsi, > I don't really want double cmavo on top of that. The old polysyllabic cmavo would become obsolete & archaic. Only those researching ancient Lojban archives would need to know them. It might well be easier to learn to swap {du} & {duu} (& were it voted on I'd be in favour), but it will never get support from Lojban Central. [Who invented that term? Was it Nick? It reminds me of John Le Carre - Moscow Central, run by Karla.] --- And