Re: [jboske] gunma

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la pycyn cusku di'e

> Well, that is one interpretation, but I take the "considered jointly" as 
> part
> "is a mass/ team/aggregate/whole" not as modifying "components."

lei ci gerku cu gunma la spat
"The three dogs is a mass/whole of component Spot, considered jointly"?


> It makes no
> sense to massify a mass, you can only reasonably massify a heap or a set.

Yes. But there is no massifying going on here.


> I would certainly to deny {ro gerku se
> gunma loi gerku}, for what else could the components be?

That says that each of the dogs is a se gunma of the whole mass.

The components could be taken as mass as well of course:

ko'a joi ko'e joi ko'i cu se gunma loi gerku
Ko'a, ko'e and ko'i (together) conform a mass of dogs.

In that case {ko'a joi ko'e joi ko'i du loi gerku}.

(And using {se gunma} is like using {se du}.)

That is what the simplest interpretation of the gi'uste suggests.

There is no suggestion that the se gunma is a set, or a component
of the mass.

> It is not generally
> required that the component list be complete in these gismu, so saying 
> {lovi
> gerku se gunma loi gerku} is not false, merely incomplete.

Then x2 would be a component of the mass, it would not be all
the components considered jointly.

It's one of these:

1- lei re prenu cu gunma la djan e la meris
2- lei re prenu cu gunma la djan joi la meris
3- lei re prenu cu gunma la djan ce la meris

pc says 1, the gi'uste says 2, and John Cowan says 3.

I prefer the gi'uste version in this case.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.