Message-Id: <199507251442.KAA12742@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Tue, 25 Jul 1995 10:01:14 -0400
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      lu'a
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

>> >{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} requires a mass as its sumti

Why?

Here are the relevant cmavo list entries for the converters

lu'i      LAhE     the set composed of
    the set with members; converts another description type to a set of the
 members

lu'a      LAhE     the individuals of
    the members of the set/components of the mass; converts another description
 type to individuals

lu'o      LAhE     the mass composed of
    the mass composed of; converts another description type to a mass composed
 of the members

vu'i      LAhE     the sequence of
    sumti qualifier: the sequence made from set or composed of
 elements/components; order is vague


>, therefore in {lu'a le selcku}, {le
>selcku} must be viewed as a mass.  There is nothing strange about that,
>but it is just not a mass of books as {lei selcku} would be.  It is a
>mass of something else (not explained by the description) and that mass
>happens to be a book.

Does not follow, since your premise was incorrect.

>>"lu'a loi selsku" might refer to components of the book(s).
>
>In my opinion no.  It can only refer to books, which are the components
>of such a mass.  I thought we had agreed about this.  {re lu'a le nanmu
>joi le ninmu joi le verba} can't be the man's ear and the man's leg, it
>has to be two of the man, the woman and the child.

I think if the interior is massified, that it is semantically ambiguous
what components individuate - i.e. context determines.  If the
connective in the above were ".e" or "ce" (the latter being what I tend
to use since the original basis for these converters was selection from
a set)

>> But
>> nothing has massified "le selcku" (the books) to cause them to break
>> down into components.
>
>Yes, {lu'a} has. It means "a [at least one] component of...".

Disagree that lu'a has this effect.

lojbab