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

["Adam D. Lopresto" <adam@pubcrawler.org>]

On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Maxim Katcharov wrote:

> "Mass"/"together" expands to "x1 is a mass with components x2". This
> is an actual relation. I consider that as significant in terms of
> content as you can get.

That's pretty much exactly the definition of {gunma}.  "x1 is a
mass/team/aggregate/whole, together composed of componets x2, considered
jointly."  It seems pretty clearly that x1 is a mass, and that x2 is a plural
reference.

.i lei tadni cu gunma le tadni
The mass of the students is a mass formed from the students.

But if you don't permit plural reference, then what can possibly fill the x2
there?  It certainly can't be each student considered seperately (ro le
tadni).  And it can't be the mass of the students, since that's exactly
what's in the x1.  So what is it?

And in case you're tempted to say it's actually the set, consider the
definitely of mei

x1 is the mass formed from set x2 whose n member(s) are x3.

lei re xa tadni cu re xa mei le'i re xa tadni le re xa tadni
The mass of the 26 students is a mass with 26 members, formed from the set of
the 26 students whose members were the 26 students themselves.
(Yes, that's horribly redundant.  Oh well.)

So as far as your asking for proof that the language permits plural
predication (predication on several entities together, but distinct from a
distributive predication on individuals, or a predication on a mass), that
certainly seems like it to me.  I'm curious how you interpret that, or what
you could possibly see filling the x2 of {gunma} or the x3 of {-mei}.
--
Adam Lopresto
http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/

Life is like a simile.