Message-Id: <m0sUeGx-0000ZBC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 8 Jul 1995 14:06:05 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: indefinites - Lojbab's phonecon with Cowan (finally!)
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 2423
Lines: 64

la lojbab cusku di'e

> If we say "le ci remna cu pencu le ci gerku", we are talking about
> exactly 3 men, and exactly 3 dogs, but 9 events of touching.

Agreed. Absolutely.

> I contend that this should also be equivalent to:
>
> "ci lo remna cu pencu ci lo gerku"
>
> which should also refer to exactly 3 men, 3 dogs, and 9 acts of touching,
> although we have lost the definiteness.

This is, of course, one possibility. This is the view I was espousing
before And convinced me that the other possibility was more natural.
Whichever of the two we finally decide on, the same would apply to:

        ci da poi remna cu pencu ci de poi gerku

Or are you saying that we will have different rules for outermost {ci}
when it is in front of {da} and in front of {lo}? You didn't say in this
post what would be the difference, if any, between the {da} and {lo}
versions.

[lots deleted]
> I basically agree, as does Nora, though our agreement is more specific to
> the "lo" form of the above:
> pa lo jubme cu se tuple vo lo tuple
> re lo jubme cu se tuple bi lo tuple

Which contradicts what you just said above for the men and dogs case.
If we had nine events of "man touches dog" before, how come we don't
have 16 events of "table has leg" here?

> Nora and I have gone similar but varying directions in regards to what
> to make of indefinites "re jubme" and "bi tuple".  I think we both now
> feel that equating them to the same thing with "lo" inserted may be too
> simplistic.

Before deciding how {re jubme} behaves I think it would be better to
settle on how {re lo jubme} does. It doesn't make sense to explain
the first in terms of the second if we are not clear on the first.

I think the two possibilities are:

        re lo jubme cu se tuple vo lo tuple

(1)     Two tables have four legs each.

(2)     Each of two tables are in relationship "se tuple" with
        each of four legs.

Above you said the meaning was (2) for the man-dog case, then you gave
an example where it is something else altogether (a mass type of thing)
in the table-leg case. I think that (1) is the best choice.

If you want {re lo jubme cu se tuple bi lo tuple} to be the sensible
thing to say, then this would mean that {re lo jubme} is a mass of
two tables, and {bi lo tuple} a mass of eight legs. In that case,
{re lo jubme cu se tuple bi lo tuple} would mean the same as
{lu'o re lo jubme cu se tuple lu'o bi lo tuple}.

Jorge