[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] pro-sumti question
la pycyn cusku di'e
{gerku} refers to dogs in the usual way, {gunma} and {remei} refer
to masses in the usual way; the usual way to refer to dogs is as wholes,
the
usual way to refer to masses is as parts -- that is what the quantifiers on
{lei} say.
I think that's a big confusion. For starters {gunma} and {remei}
refer to relationships, {le remei} refers to things that go in the
x1 of {remei}. If {le remei} refers to only part of a mass I could
say {mi remei} on the grounds that I am part of a pair. That doesn't
make sense. The quantifier on {lei} cannot get suffused into
the relationship {remei}. One thing has nothing to do with the
other.
I don't suppose the Book does say this explicitly -- it is remarkably poor
on
semantics and ontology. But, on the assumption (which I am obligated to
make
if I am to learn **Lojban**, rather than a kindred -- or not so --
language)
that the quantifiers on {lei} are correct, that has to be the way it works:
{le remei} is, in context, exactly equivalent to {lei re danlu} and subject
to same interpretation -- if not quite exactly the same grammar.
It is not exactly equivalent. {lei re danlu} refers to the two
animals. {le remei} could refer to each of any number of pairs.
If there were two cats and two dogs, for example, {le remei} could
be "each of the two pairs". So even if you accept the inconvenient
implicit quantifier proposed by the Book for {lei}, you don't have
to create a strange interpretation for {le remei}.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx