Message-Id: <199507251850.OAA20269@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Tue, 25 Jul 1995 13:27:54 EDT
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu>
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: Indefinites
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

la djan:
> >>        In essence, the rule I'm proposing that da-series sumti have nested
> >> scope, but descriptors co-equal scope.

la xorxes:
> >Then we couldn't say:
> >        ro le verba cu citka lo plise
> >
> >to say that each child had an apple, unless we mean that they all had
> >the same one.

la lojbab:
> You have assumed "lo plise" is a singular.

Not at all. I just assumed the {su'o} quantifier. With John's rule, the
sentence says that there is at least one apple that all the children eat.
They each may also eat other apples, they may even all of them eat the
same other apples, but the sentence (with John's rule) says that they all
eat at least one in common.

With the rule that I think is more natural (nested scope) the sentence
only says that each child has at least one, but not necessarily the same
one each.

> Since there is no explicit
> quantifier, "ro le verba cu citka lo plise" does not say that each child has
> one apple.

Not _exactly_ one, at least one. But with John's rule, it is the same one
for all of them.

> lu'o/lu'a aren't descriptors, and hence may or may not be covered under
> a widest scope rule for descriptors.

If lu'o/lu'a behave like {da} and not like {lo}, then the mess will be
complete.

> And I would need to see an example
> where nested vs. equal scope made a significant difference with masses.

Here's one:

        ro le verba cu citka lu'o re plise

With nested scope: Each child eats (some mass of) two apples.

With equal scope: Each child eats (the same mass of) two apples.

Jorge