From jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU  Sat Mar  6 22:44:59 2010
Date:         Fri, 26 May 1995 19:35:52 EDT
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: quantifiers on sumti - late response
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
X-From-Space-Date: 
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
Message-ID: <LiJCEfLaIjO.A.QpE.rt0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

And:
> I think the default should actually be an implicit {loe}, the "myopic
> singularizer".

I like it!  Both the suggestion and the description.  (In practice, that
doesn't differ much from saying that it's the mass.)

> Since there is no point in using quantifiers with
> loe, that would leave {re do} unambiguously meaning "two of you".

Yes.  Can you accept {mi nitcu re lo'e tanxe} on the same grounds? i.e.
"I need two of Mr Box"?

> For "the mass of you" (not a terribly useful concept), {luo do}.

It can be useful for the emphatic "all of you".  If you just say {ro
do}, that means each of you individually, so you have to say {lu'o ro
do} to make it the mass you:  {lu'o ro ko bevri le pipno}.

> Ah. {lo broda} is {lo suo broda} and {lohi broda} is {lohi ro broda}?

No, {lo broda} is {lo ro broda} and yes, {lo'i broda} is {lo'i ro
broda}.  Even more explicitly {lo broda} is {su'o lo ro broda} and {lo'i
broda} is {piro lo'i ro broda}.

Jorge