[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: mut



la lojbab cusku di'e

>"do" is indeterminate whether it is a mass or individuals, per Chap 6
>section 13 of the book.

Then that solves it for personal pronouns. {coi ro do} is meaningful
and we can say {ro ma'a} for "each of us" without the need of {lu'a}.

>I think that it plain does not work specifically for "lei".  "lei broda"
>need not be a massification of a plural set; it is a single mass, and the
>components are of unknown cardinality.

Plurality is not really a problem. Obviously if you said
{re lei broda} you would mean {re lei su'ore broda}, but this
is no different than {re le broda} meaning {re le su'ore broda}.

>  On the other hand, with "lei"
>unlike "loi" there could be a plural number of masses.  With 10 people, I
>think you could have "mu lei re prenu".

I think that with {lei} you should only have one mass, just as with loi,
but it doesn't matter much. As you say, you can always use {le} in
these cases. Where I do find it useful that the quantifier should
determine mass/individual is for the personal pronouns, and this 
is already the case so I'm happy. I wonder what happens with 
other pronouns... For example:

    ko'a goi lei ci nanmu cu vecnu lo xirma mi lo rupnu be li cinono
    The three men sold a horse to me for an amount of $300.

    i mi pleji fi ro ko'a fe lo rupnu be li panono
    I paid to each of them an amount of $100.

Is that correct? I need the mass in the first sentence because
without it I would be saying that I bought three horses, one from 
each men, but I want to say that I bought one horse from the three
of them.

I need the individuals in the second sentence because I am paying
them $100 each, not $100 for them to split. Does {ro ko'a} do the
job I want there, or do I need {ro lu'a ko'a}? I think {ro ko'a} should
work, just like for personal pronouns.

co'o mi'e xorxes