Re: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}

["Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On 5/23/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> I still don't see why
>
>  ro lo mapku cu melbi gi'e ku'i du'e mei do'e lo nu mi bevri
>
>  (ku'i ro lo mapku du'emei do'e lo nu mi bevri)
>
> wouldn't work if
>
>  lo ro...
>
> does.
¨
{ro lo broda cu brode} says that each of the referents
of broda satisfies the predicate {brode}.

{lo ro broda cu brode} says that the referent(s) of
{lo ro broda} satisfy the predicate {brode}, it doesn't
specify whether together or individually.

> I also don't see how you can be converting it into a
> mass automatically.

No, there is no conversion. {lo} is not marked for
distributivity/nondistributivity.

> x1 is the mass formed from set x2 with member(s) x3
>
> If {ro L_ ci mapku} was placed in x1, I would take it to mean that
> each hat was a mass individually. You'd need a {lu'o} or something of
> the sort.

Right, with an outer quantifier it would say that each
fits the predicate by itself.

mu'o mi'e xorxes