Re: Masses [was Re: mut]

[Robin Turner <robin@Bilkent.EDU.TR>]

la xorxes. cusku di'e

> What you say about {mi se batci lo/loi ci gerku} is very similar.
> However, be careful with lo/loi and inner quantifiers. {lo ci gerku}
> means "at least one of the three books that there are in all".
> You meant {ci lo gerku}, "three of all the books that there are in all".
> Also {loi ci gerku} is "some part of the mass of three dogs that
> there are in all", and you meant probably {lu'o ci lo gerku}
> or {lo gerku cimei}, "some mass of three dogs".
>
> The inner quantifier is useful with le/lei because it quantifies
> the complete set of what is under discussion or one has in mind.
> The inner quantifier with lo/loi should in general best be left
> unspecified, because it quantifies the set of all those that really
> are, and we normally are not in a position to give an exact number
> for that.
>

Yeah, I always get confused about this.  It's actually become a lot clearer in
my head as a result of trying to write the lesson on numbers (coming soon)
where I use the pack of dogs example, and caught myself translating {lo ci
gerku} as "three dogs", which as you say, would only be possible if there were
only three dogs in the world of discourse.  Presumably one could use
quantification in cases like {lo xa braplu} (six continents) or with restrctive
relative phrases e.g. {lo ci gerku poi batci mi}.  Interestingly, in these
cases {lo} would translate as "the" rather than the more usual "a".

>
> >On
> >the other hand, it could still mean that I was bitten by a pack of three
> dogs,
> >because whether I view them as a mass or as three individual dogs is
> subjective.
>
> In your example you're absolutely right. If you were bitten by a pack
> of dogs and each one of them bit you, you might describe the
> situation both as {mi se batci le ci gerku} and {mi se batci lei ci
> gerku}. You can view it both as one relationship between you and
> the pack, or as three relationships, one with each dog.
>
> But other examples are not that subjective at all. The piano example,
> for example:
>
> >I shall propose that with {le} it is also possible that they carried the
> piano at
> >the same time, which from the point of view of the observer is the same as
> them
> >carrying the piano _en masse_.
>
> That can only be right if it is true that {ko'a bevri le pipno ije ko'e
> bevri
> le pipno ije ko'i bevri le pipno}. Whether it is acceptable to say that
> this is true or not, depends exclusively on the semantics of bevri. Is
> the x1 of bevri supposed to be the full carrier, or a simple participation
> is enough to be called a bevri?  I would say a participation does
> not make one into a bevri, but in any case if we disagree we are
> disagreeing about the meaning of {bevri}, not of le/lei.
>

Quite.

>
> There are examples where this disagreement is less likely.
> For example:
>
>              le ci prenu cu grake li parenoki'o
>              Each of the three persons weighs 120 kg.
>
>             lei ci prenu cu grake li parenoki'o
>             The three persons (together) weigh 120 kg.
>
> Obviously those two situations are very very different, so you
> cannot use {le} there in place of {lei}.
>

Good example - I may use this in the lesson!

>
> >du'u le ci prenu cu bevri le pipno kei nibli du'u le prenu goi ko'a cu
> bevri le
> >pipno kei .e du'u le prenu goi ko'e cu bevri le pipno kei .e du'u le prenu
> goi
> >ko'o cu bevri le pipno .i pe'i la'e ko'a .e ko'e .e ko'o cavi bevri le
> pipno kei
> >du la'e lei ci prenu goi ko'a .e ko'e .e ko'o cavi bevri le pipno
>
> Change {bevri le pipno} to {grake li parenoki'o} and you will see
> that it is not a logical implication at all. The fallacy is in identifying
> {lei ci prenu} with {ko'a e ko'e e ko'o}. The correct identification
> is with {ko'a joi ko'e joi ko'o}, which is not distributive!
>

Point accepted!

co'o mi'e robin.