Re: quantifiers on sumti - late response

["Dylan P. Thurston" <dpt@math.harvard.edu>]

Chris Bogart writes:
 > la kris. cusku di'e
 > > > .i ku'i da nabmi .i pe'i na cumki fi'o valsi zo lei .uinai
 >
 > .i la dilyn cusku di'e:
 > >.i ki'u ma do cusku di'u .i .e'u lu
 > >        re le gunma be lo gunka cu zbasu le ti dinju
 > >li'u (to zoi gy. {two of the groups of workers built this building}
 > >.gy toi) simsa lu
 > >        re lei gunka cu zbasu le ti dinju
 > >li'u
 >
 > Because in your interpretation of "re lei gunka" it's the group that's
 > "in-mind", not the workers.  "Two of the masses-that-I-have-in-mind of
 > things-which-really-are-workers" -- I think that's not really a consistent
 > use of "lei", since "pa lei gunka" clearly means "the mass of all things
 > which I refer to as workers (but might not be)".

I was going to suggest that I put in an inner quantifier {su'o} to
explicitly say that I'm not talking about _all_ the men I have in
mind, but I checked and the inner quantifier of {lei} is already
{su'o}.  Doesn't this mean that {lei gunka} can be some piece of the
workers I have in mind?  Maybe it would make more sense for the inner
quantifier of {gunka} to be {ro}.

 >                      ____
 >  Chris Bogart        \  /  ftp://ftp.csn.net/cbogart/html/homepage.html
 >  Quetzal Consulting   \/   cbogart@quetzal.com

mu'o mi'e. dilyn.