From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Mon May 29 00:58:39 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3130 ; Mon, 29 May 95 00:58:36 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Fri, 26 May 95 23:33:59 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa28570; 27 May 95 0:33 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2503; Fri, 26 May 95 19:31:45 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 4306; Fri, 26 May 1995 19:31:45 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 19:35:52 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: <9505270033.aa28570@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R 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