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

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

On 6/7/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/7/06, Adam D. Lopresto <adam@pubcrawler.org> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> No, it isn't a plural reference. It's a quite strictly a singular
> reference when it's the expanded form.

If a group is composed of Alice, Betty and Carrie jointly, it does not follow
that the group is composed of Alice jointly. What could that mean?
{gunma} does not mean "x1 has x2 as a member", that's {selcmi}. {gunma}
means "x1 consists of x2".

For example:

  le kamni cu gunma la alis jo'u la betis jo'u la karis
  "The committee consists of Alice, Betty and Carrie."

It does not follow that the committee consists of Alice.

  le kamni cu selcmi la alis .e la betis .e la karis
   "The committee has Alice, Betty and Carrie as members."

It does follow that the committee has Alice as member.

The x2 of gunma is (normally) non-distributive and the x2 of selcmi
is (normally) distributive.

I say "normally" because the x2 of {gunma} can be distributive in
another way:

  le kamni cu gunma lo nanmu .e ba bo lo ninmu
  The committee consisted of men and (later) of women.

In this case, it does follow that the committee consisted of men, and
also that it (at a later time) consisted of women. But it is not distributive
for the men or for the women. The commitee never did consist of each of
the men nor of each of the women.

mu'o mi'e xorxes