From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Mon May 29 01:00:19 1995 Received: from stryx.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3161 ; Mon, 29 May 95 01:00:18 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3138 ; Mon, 29 May 95 00:59:07 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Sat, 27 May 95 19:24:03 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa12306; 27 May 95 20:23 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3345; Sat, 27 May 95 15:21:42 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2125; Sat, 27 May 1995 15:21:43 -0400 Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 20:21:19 +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 Fri, 26 May 95 19:35:52 EDT.) Message-ID: <9505272023.aa12306@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R 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