Re: quantifiers on sumti - late response

[jorge@phyast.pitt.edu]

And:
> > > I think the default should actually be an implicit {loe}, the "myopic
> > > singularizer".
> > I like it! Both the suggestion and the description. (In practice, that
> > doesn't differ much from saying that it's the mass.)
> There are differences between masses and myopic singulars, as I'm
> sure you're aware.

I'm aware there are differences, I'm not sure that I know exactly what
they are.

> {ci da stedu loe prenu} is probably false (or at
> least conceptually really weird),

Yes, but for the opposite reason that you think, I think. There are
in fact many more than 3 human heads. (I prefer to talk about {stedu
be lo'e remna} rather than {be lo'e prenu}. I don't think the number
of heads is very relevant or easy to determine for general {prenu}.)

{ta stedu lo'e remna} has to mean "that's a human head". Otherwise,
it wouldn't make sense to relate anything concrete with {lo'e remna},
and that would be a shame. Just like {mi prami lo'e remna}, "I love
humans", is mainly a statement about {mi}, {ta stedu lo'e remna}
has to be a statement about {ta}. Can't we think of a human head
without there being a particular human to which it belongs? If not,
then change the example to {ta tanxe lo'e plise}, surely we can
think of a box for apples that is not a box for any particular apple.

(In fact, I'm tempted to write {ta tanxe reno lo'e plise} for
"that's a box for twenty apples", i.e. a twenty-apple box, not
necessarily for any particular twenty apples.)

If you want to claim that only {pa da stedu lo'e remna}, then that
{pa da} has to be a {lo'e} type object as well, and only {lo'e}
objects could be in relationship with {lo'e} objects, which would
limit its usefulness enormously.

> and {ci da stedu lee prenu} is probably
> false too, if we're referring to a person,

But {le'e prenu} doesn't refer to any person, only to the particular
idea of person that you have in mind.

> while {ci da stedu loi prenu}
> can be true, if the person mass contains three people.

No doubt. Exactly three things are heads of some fraction of the
mass of all persons.

> > > Since there is no point in using quantifiers with
> > > loe, that would leave {re do} unambiguously meaning "two of you".
> > Yes. Can you accept {mi nitcu re lo'e tanxe} on the same grounds?
> > i.e. "I need two of Mr Box"?
> > Well, I accept it as much as I accept {re loi tanxe} or {re la xorxes
> jambias}.

But that's different. {loi tanxe} and {la xorxes} have not been myopically
singularized, they are singular on their own right. If you don't have
a problem with {re do} for "two of you", (understanding {do} in the m.s.
sense,) then there shouldn't be a problem with {re lo'e tanxe} either.

> > > Ah. {lo broda} is {lo suo broda} and {lohi broda} is {lohi ro broda}?
> > No, {lo broda} is {lo ro broda} and yes, {lo'i broda} is {lo'i ro broda}.
> > Even more explicitly {lo broda} is {su'o lo ro broda} and {lo'i broda}
> > is {piro lo'i ro broda}.
>
> So what is "a set of boxes"? {pisuho lohi tanxe}?

I guess so, although that's really a fraction of the set of all boxes.
I'm not sure what's the convention about fractions of sets, I suppose
subsets is the obvious choice. If you want to be more precise, for example
talk about two sets of boxes, you could say {re lu'i lo tanxe} "two sets
of at least one box each".  {lo'i tanxe} is short for {lu'i ro [lo ro]
tanxe} "the set of all boxes".

Jorge