LOL, so you are xorxe. Sorry: no offense intended!
OK, let me take another shot at understanding the gadri proposal.
lo broda can mean any quantifier applied to broda , masses of broda
I don't see what quantifiers have to do with the issue; it can refer to any (bunch of) men [This is a theological argument; philosophical arguments occasionally have a point -- see quite appropriate G. Ryles on "Where is the University"]
(or even sets of broda ?! that would be weird since a set is an object of entirely different nature)
Ah, just the point sets are a different thing from the men who are in them and xorxes thinks bunches are too [and Ryle's questioner about the university as well]. lo broda does not refer to sets of broda, that lo broda gunma or some such thing or lo'i broda. It probably doesn'[t refer to masses of brodas either, but that notion is to mixed up still to allow one to be sure. And, of course, akll of this may be wrong if the part of xorlo that deals with [what logicians have called since forever] intensional contexts is
right.
. Moreover, it can refer to specific or generic broda
I am not sure what a generic broda is; I can refer to brodas generically or specifically or individually or ... but they are the same brodas. I think the idea of generic brodas is somehow hooked up with the mysterious part of xorlo.
The precise meaning comes from the
context. The only restriction is that the quantifier is "positive" in the sense that we can have "at least one broda" but not "exactly one broda" or "at most one broda".
Again, I don't get the quantifiers; do they arise with le? We can specify how many broda we are referring to by the internal quantification -- and all of these -- except maybe "at most one" -- are ok. We can enumerate brodas [from the bunch: from those we are referring to] with external quantifiers.
At least this seems a reasonable constraint to me, since otherwise the meaning is reversed. It seems too weird to let the context decide between one meaning and another meaning which is the exact opposite of the first.
Lost again. What two meanings?
For example, lo nanmu bevri le pipno can mean anything from "a man carries the piano(s)" or "several groups of men carry the piano(s)" to "all men carry the piano(s)". It can also mean "the man carries the piano(s)".
Well, I would say no to "several groups of men;" that seems to suggest more structure than lo requires and so to need lo so'o nanmu gunma or some such.
lo n broda can mean either "n broda , divided into masses in the way (whatever)" (n broda regarded individually is a special case where each mass consists of 1 broda) or "(whatever quantifier) of broda / masses of broda out of the n broda".
Again, I would avoid "mass" here altogether, but more inportantly, lo n broda says nothing about the brodas being divided into sub-groupings [bunches don't have these anyway];
they are just the n brodas being considered together. And no masses, etc. out of anything (well, out of all the brodas, I suppose, but that is usually not interesting and isn't actually said here).
m lo broda means "m individual broda". This is way more specific than the previous constructs. Can it also mean "the m broda out of the specific broda"?
It means m individual brodas, taken separately ["each of m "] out of the [bunch of] brodas identified as lo broda
m lo n broda means "m individual broda out of the n broda". Hmm, I don't like this. What is the difference between this and m le n broda ?
In m le n broda, the things don't have to be brodas, the speaker is just calling them that to befuddle us.
It doesn't appear to make much sense to use a non-specific collection of n broda . "a person out of some three person" is strange, because why should we care about these generic three persons? How are they related to the meaning conveyed? For example re lo ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno . Two persons are carrying piano(s), but what is the relevance of the third? Unless it's a specific threesome we have in mind here, in which case, why wouldn't we use le ?
Ah yes, There are t least three levels of history going on here sometimes and I get lost as to which one is the one being used at the moment, so I tend to stick to the most coherent one as long as I can. In
general, le has to be specific (if that is the right word, I never did get all those distinctions down pat, a problem in which I am not alone apparently) since its referent can only be located by the selection of the speaker. lo doesn't have to be, since its referent can be found by looking at the brodas in the situation and seeing which ones fit. So, lo ends up being as specific as le some of the time and other times not but the way of making generic claims.
Context [we say "converational implicatures" to sound learned] will usually tell which, So, look around: are there three guys handy? it's them, and the third is there because he's hanging with the others (note: context includes the rest of the discourse, where I would expect the three to be mentioned separately). And we don't use le because they were self selected and really are nanmu.
loi broda means... Hmm, I don't see what's the difference between this and lo broda
As noted, masses are another thing altogether and dealt with in a muddle of past history and new attempts at various things. I've lost track of just where they are at the moment.
loi n broda can mean any quantifier applied to (generic or specific) masses of broda of size n (each).
Even here I don't see where quantifiers come into the picture. it just a mass of n brodas, whatever that may be.
m loi broda means "m masses of broda". Can it also mean "m masses of broda out of the specific masses of broda"?
I'm not sure what this means altogether; each possibilty is eithfr nonsensical or at variance with the rest of the pattern
m loi n broda means "m masses of broda of size n". Can it also mean "m masses of broda of size n out of the specific masses of broda"?
lo'i broda can mean any quantifier applied to (generic or specific) sets of broda
Yet again, why quantifiers? It's just a set of brodas (no problems here with intermediate notions).
lo'i n broda can mean any quantifier applied to (generic or specific) sets of broda of size n (each).
Just an n-member set of brodas
m lo'i broda means "m sets of broda". Can it also mean "m sets of broda out of the specific sets of broda"?
Here I am not sure, but I think it is just m brodas from the set of n, taken individually (cf. lo)m lo'i n broda means "m sets of broda of size n". Can it also mean "m sets of broda of size n out of the specific sets of broda"?
le broda can mean any quantifier applied to broda or masses of broda but these have to be specific (and it's not veridicial)
No, it's just the [bunch of] things I have in mind and am choosing to call brodas. No quantifiers at issue (that's so 1990s).
le n broda means "(whatever quantifier) of broda / masses of broda out of the specific n broda".
Just the specified [bunch of] n so-called brodas. Why quantifiers?
m le broda means "m individual broda out of the specific broda".
"Specified" brodas are about as specific -- even individual -- as things get.
m le n broda means "m individual broda out of the specific n broda".
But note (I think) that the n may
not be accurate either (like the broda).
lei broda means... Hmm, I don't see what's the difference between this and le broda
lei n broda can mean any quantifier applied to (specific) masses of broda of size n (each).
m lei broda means "m masses of broda out of the specific masses of broda".
m lei n broda means "m masses of broda of size n out of the specific masses of broda". Hmm, does it mean there is no way to say how many specific masses of broda are there?
le'i broda can mean any quantifier applied to (specific) sets of broda
le'i n broda can mean any quantifier applied to (specific) sets of broda of size n (each).
m le'i broda means "m sets of broda out of the specific sets of broda".
m le'i n broda means "m sets of broda of size n out of the specific sets of broda". Does it mean there is no way to say how many specific sets of broda are there?
I stopped the line-by-line since it is all repetitive here.
Now there are fractional outer quantifiers. I guess they mean we apply a (possibly contextual) quantifier to masses of broda, but instead of substituting the mass which is our variable into the predicate, we substitute a (non-specific) portion of it. For example su'o re pixa loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno means "at least two groups of men exist such that 60% of each group carry the piano(s)".
Where is this coming from? "at least 2.6 men from the men carry the so-called piano" Not very sensible, but possible. Fractional also have along
and occasionally contradictory history, which (so far as I can find) the baseline folk have never nailed down -- or done so obviously incorrectly.
I guess that when a group of men carries the piano, some men might be entirely uninvolved in carrying the piano.
Yep! Just like when a team wins a game, some members may not even have played.
This means that the factor unifying these men into a group is something beyond them carrying a piano together. So, if we want to convey the meaning that "a single group of 5 men carries the piano" in the sense that each of the men actually has something to do with carrying it (even if only giving instructions), we have to say pa piro loi nanmu bevri le pipno . On the other hand, if we say pa loi nanmu bevri le pipno rather than pa pisu'o loi nanmu bevri le pipno , it is possible that the context implies that all of the men in the group are involved in carrying the piano after all. Did I get this right?
Lord knows! Especially if you bring loi and the like in. I'm not
sure whether there is an easy way to say that all of the specified bunch participated in the carrying -- other than saying that, of course -- and I can't remember the word for "participate."