From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Sat Aug 28 19:44:13 2004
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from web41906.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.157])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.34)
	id 1C1Ffq-0003tt-0B
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:44:06 -0700
Message-ID: <20040829024337.55170.qmail@web41906.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [200.43.213.128] by web41906.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:43:37 PDT
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:43:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jorge "Llambías" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>
Subject: [lojban] Re: personal pro-sumti as masses
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
In-Reply-To: <cgqlqb+culn@eGroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-archive-position: 8565
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list


--- Evgeni Sklyanin wrote:
>
> The discussion started from an attempt to translate into lojban the 
> frase 
>      "Together, we are stronger than apart" 
> The first attempt was 
>        {mi'a tsamau ro mi'a}
> which was criticized on the grounds that {mi'a}, as defined in CLL, 
> is a mass. 

I understand that as "we are stronger than each of us", but {mi'a}
by itself does not indicate either collective or distributive.

>The following variants were suggested:
>        {mi'a tsamau lu'a mi'a} =? we-and-they-jointly are stronger 
> then some of us
> or      {mi'a tsamau ro lu'a mi'a} =? we-and-they-jointly are 
> stronger than each of us
>
> Questions: 1. Which of the variants do you prefer?

I would say:

   lu'o mi'a tsamau ro (lu'a) mi'a
   We together are stronger than each of us.

>            2. Can we use {me} instead of {lu'a}?

I think {ro mi'a} = {ro me mi'a} = {ro lu'a mi'a}

>            3. In CLL it is said that {mi'o}, {mi'a}, {ma'a}, and 
> {do'o} are masses. How about other personal pro-sumti? Are they also 
> masses? For example, {ro lu'a do}=? each of you? 

{ro do} has always been used for "each of you".

> If so, is the 
> popular greating {coi rodo} correct? May be, {coi ro lu'a do} is 
> better?

I think personal pronouns are not marked either way for distributivity, 
but the BPFK has not yet dealt with them.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail