Message-Id: <m0sRCvJ-0000YoC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Wed, 28 Jun 1995 20:28:30 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: yet more masses again
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Content-Length: 2881
Lines: 61

la lojbab cusku di'e

> If Cowan has not stipulated the default quantifiers for the lu'a series
> in his papers, they probably need to be.  My first inclination would be
> to assume that they match lo/loi/lo'i, but perhaps there is grounds to
> have them match le/lei/le'i.

lo'i doesn't match lo/loi. I think the best is {su'o} for {lu'a}
and {piro} for {lu'i} and {lu'o}. "At least one of the members of..."
and "the whole mass/set of...", respectively.

> Jorge.  You just used the example of pointing at a red thing while
> conceiving of it as a mass with a non-visible blue thing.

But I would never actually do that!!! I was using that example to show
the absurdity of saying that properties of the parts are properties
of the whole. I don't think you can point to something and expect
others to understand that you are pointing to something that is mostly
not there. That example was not an example of how to use {ta}, but
one of how _not_ to use it. Sorry about the confusion.

> If you say
> "mi viska ta" while conceiving of the mass you aren't saying that you
> see the whole of it.

My point was that you cannot conceive of {ta} as being something that
is mostly not there. {ta} means "that thing there", and if the object
in question is mostly not there, then you can't use {ta} to refer
directly to it. (You can of course say {le se pagbu be ta} or something
like that.)

> >> "Do you like the book" and "Do you like all of the book" can receive
> >> different answers.
> >In English, I agree.  Because "Do you like all of the book" has the
> >connotation of asking about whether you like each part of the book.  But
> >that is not the case for {piro}, in my opinion.
> I don't agree.  Let us change to "citka lei cidja".  I think that eating
> "piro lei cidja" means that you ate more than if you ate "piso'a lei
> cidja".  I think the same would go for "nelci piso'a le cukta".

Of course, but that's not what And and I were disagreeing about.
I was saying that there is no difference between {citka lei cidja}
and {citka piro lei cidja}, assuming that {piro} is the default
quantifier for {lei}.

> >"Do you like all of the book" would be better translated as {xu do nelci
> >ro lu'a le selcku}, rather than {xu do nelci piro le selcku}, which is
> >the same as {xu do nelci le selcku}.
>
> I don't see any obvious difference between "ro lu'a le selcku" and "le
> selcku" which itself is "ro le selcku".

{ro lu'a le selcku} is "each of the components of the book, (viewed as
a mass)", while {le selcku} is just "the book", with no reference to
components. The referents of {lu'a le selcku} are not books. They are
only parts of the book. Chapters, for instance. So {mi nelci ro lu'a
le selcku} could mean "I like each of the chapters of the book",
while {mi nelci le selcku} is just "I like the book", without any
comment on liking individual parts of it.

Jorge