On 7/4/08, Chris Capel <pdf23ds@gmail.com> wrote:
What would you say the meaning of {le re nanla cu tsamau li'o} is? The
same as {ro le re nanla li'o}, even given xorlo? Or indeterminate?
It says that there's some referent who's stronger, and that a description of the referent is "two boys." It's very indeterminate; it could be a goldfish. (But it probably isn't-- it's probably two boys.)
As the inverse of the below, I believe there's a (weak) implication that the referent is NOT a mass (since you could have as easily said "lei"), and that each of the two boys does the action separately.
On a related note, would you say {lei nanla} would more strongly
suggest that there are {su'o re nanla} than does {le nanla}?
By its nature, no. In the real world, compared to the other choices on hand, probably a weak implication in many situations.
The archetypal situation where a mass is used is where there are not only more than one of the described thing involved, but you couldn't rightfully say that each of the individuals were in the relationship on their own. So I think in most circumstances it (weakly) implies not only that there were su'ore, but also that ONLY the mass and NOT the individuals in that mass were in the stated relation.
pe'i ru'e
.i
.io mu'o
mi'e .selkik.