Re: [lojban] Masses

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 10:27 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> To try to state essentially the same point in a completely different way:
> just as brodeing holds of the referentage of "lo broda" to any degree on the
> coll--dist scale, so does "brodaing". On the plural reference model, "lo
> broda" has many referents, and it needn't be the case that each is brode; my
> point it that it also needn't be the case that each is broda.
>
> I'm not sure if you already agree with this point.

I think I do, yes: "lo broda" does not require that each of its
referents be broda, "lo broda" = "zo'e noi ke'a broda", not "zo'e noi
ro ke'a broda".

It seems though that the most common use of "lo broda" will be for
"zo'e noi ro ke'a broda" and not for "zo'e noi lu'o ke'a broda" or any
other intermediate distribution. In fact for many (most?) broda "zo'e
noi lu'o ke'a broda" may not even be available. How can things be dogs
other than one by one? But when the "noi lu'o ke'a broda" form is
available, I don't think it would be wise to disallow it. I think the
cardinality can only count things that are broda one by one though, so
it would seem that the presence of an inner quantifier forces the "noi
ro ke'a broda" interpretation.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.