From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu May 31 16:28:25 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 31 May 2001 23:28:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 28381 invoked from network); 31 May 2001 23:28:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 31 May 2001 23:28:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.62) by mta2 with SMTP; 31 May 2001 23:28:24 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 31 May 2001 16:28:24 -0700 Received: from 200.69.11.68 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 31 May 2001 23:28:24 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.68] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] (no subject) Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 23:28:24 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 May 2001 23:28:24.0878 (UTC) FILETIME=[636954E0:01C0EA29] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 7424 la pycyn cusku di'e >My reading of the material on {lu'i} and {lu'o} and {lu'a} is that they >simply move around among the various ways of treating the same individuals: >as set, mass or distributively. That fits the examples on 134-5 and >actually >has some uses, unlike other possibilities, your suggestions included. I'm not quite sure what my suggestions are yet, I'm just exploring for the moment. But it does seem useful to distinguish for example {lu'i ci lo mlatu}, a set of three cats, from the set of all cats. >I'm >not sure, by the way, that {lu'i ro loi broda} is well-formed: It is grammatical. We have to decide whether we want to give it any meaning or not. >{lu'i} doesn't >take an internal quantifier (it is not itself a descriptor but a qualifier) >and (loi broda} takes a fractional external. One possibility is for {ro loi broda} to mean "each mass of broda". Another possibility is that it is meaningless, another that it means "the one mass of all broda", same as {piro loi broda}. >So lu'i ro lo broda = lu'i piro >loi broda = lo'i broda and so on. (see my addition on descriptors). No doubt about lu'i ro lo broda = lo'i broda. If lu'i piro loi broda is also that, we don't have a way of talking of sets whose members are masses. Not that it would be a problem for me in any case. I only need {lu'a} and {lu'o} an these don't have the problems that sets have. It seems useful to distinguish {lu'o so'i lo broda}, a mass of many broda, from {lu'o so'u lo broda}, a mass of a few broda, and so on. co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.