Re: lu'a series

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

> >{ro lu'a le selcku} is "each of the components of the book, (viewed as a
> >mass)", while {le selcku} is just "the book", with no reference to
> >components.  The referents of {lu'a le selcku} are not books.  They are
> >only parts of the book.  Chapters, for instance.  So {mi nelci ro lu'a
> >le selcku} could mean "I like each of the chapters of the book", while
> >{mi nelci le selcku} is just "I like the book", without any comment on
> >liking individual parts of it.
>
> I don't understand and/or disagree.  Where did "le selcku" become a
> mass?

{lu'a} requires a mass as its sumti, therefore in {lu'a le selcku},
{le selcku} must be viewed as a mass. There is nothing strange about
that, but it is just not a mass of books as {lei selcku} would be. It
is a mass of something else (not explained by the description) and
that mass happens to be a book.

>"lu'a loi selsku" might refer to components of the book(s).

In my opinion no. It can only refer to books, which are the components
of such a mass. I thought we had agreed about this. {re lu'a le nanmu joi
le ninmu joi le verba} can't be the man's ear and the man's leg, it has
to be two of the man, the woman and the child.

> But
> nothing has massified "le selcku" (the books) to cause them to break
> down into components.

Yes, {lu'a} has. It means "a [at least one] component of...".

Jorge