Message-Id: <199508120000.UAA10643@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Fri, 11 Aug 1995 19:56:19 EDT
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: lu'a
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

>         ko'a goi le re gerku .....
>         ........
>         ........
>         i ko'a batci lo nanmu
> If _goi_ is simply anaphorizing then, by the agreed upon interpretation
> of le re gerku cu batci lo nanmu on the quantifier thread, the last
> sentence allows each dog to pick its own man, i.e. two men might be
> bitten.  And I can think of no good prior reason to think that _goi_
> massifies or otherwise does more than introduce the anaphora marker of
> choice.

The only reason I can think of at the moment is usability. The pronoun
"they" (which corresponds to massification) in English is much more
common than "each of them". It seems like a good idea to have the simple
form get the useful meaning.

> Indeed, if it does massify then we get strange results with even
> the relatively pure cases of individual: ti becomes the mass of this, for
> example, even if this is not something easily massified (as individuals
> often are not).

I already interpret ti, ta, tu, mi, do as masses (mi'o, mi'a, ma'a, do'o
are officially defined as such, if I'm not mistaken). The other
interpretation is just too weird. I can't read {mi klama lo zarci} as
"Each of us goes to a market", possibly each to a different market.
The mass reading is the one that makes sense to me.

>         Oh for referential modes or Skolem functions! BTW the referent of
> ko'a under the massifying effect of goi would not be the pair of dogs but
> their mass, still one entity.

I don't know what would be the difference.

> Notice then that in the massifying
> interpretation ko'a batci lo nanmu would be true if only one dog bit only
> one man, masses bein g the sort of things they are (note, NOT "the sort of
> things pc has chosen to define them as").

Yes, just as in English, if I'm talking about two dogs, and I say
"They bit a man", it may be enough that one of them did the actual
sinking of the teeth in order to make the senrence true. The other
dog would have to be around, though. Otherwise it makes little sense
to refer to them as one entity taking part in that relationship.

Jorge