Message-Id: <m0sUUwc-0000ZEC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 8 Jul 1995 03:53:23 -0400
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      lu'a series
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1515
Lines: 33

>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.

I vote for su'o/pisu'o/piro.

>> >"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.

I don't understand and/or disagree.  Where did "le selcku" become a
mass?  "lu'a loi selsku" might refer to components of the book(s).  But
nothing has massified "le selcku" (the books) to cause them to break
down into components.

lojbab