From ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK Sat Mar 6 22:45:01 2010 Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 20:21:19 +0100 From: ucleaar Subject: Re: quantifiers on sumti - late response To: Bob LeChevalier X-From-Space-Date: X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Message-ID: Jorge: > > 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.) There are differences between masses and myopic singulars, as I'm sure you're aware. {ci da stedu loe prenu} is probably false (or at least conceptually really weird), and {ci da stedu lee prenu} is probably false too, if we're referring to a person, while {ci da stedu loi prenu} can be true, if the person mass contains three people. > > 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"? Well, I accept it as much as I accept {re loi tanxe} or {re la xorxes jambias}. > > 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}. So what is "a set of boxes"? {pisuho lohi tanxe}? --- And