From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Sep 05 13:41:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 5 Sep 2001 20:41:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 86696 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2001 20:21:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Sep 2001 20:21:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.229) by mta2 with SMTP; 5 Sep 2001 20:21:24 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 13:21:20 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 05 Sep 2001 20:21:20 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] ma'a as possessive: mass or individual? Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 20:21:20 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Sep 2001 20:21:20.0979 (UTC) FILETIME=[53840230:01C13648] From: "Jorge Llambias" la nitcion cusku di'e >How do you say "Each of us must bring their own toothbrush"? > >Well, fascistically, > > ro da po'u ma'a bilga lenu bevri le denci lumci tutci po da [Irrelevant to the issue at hand, but I definitely prefer {ei} over {bilga} here.] >The question is, can this reduce to > > ro ma'a bilga lenu bevri le denci lumci tutci po ma'a > >I think no, and that this sentence means "We all must bring *our* >toothbrush" --- i.e. the second ma'a in the sentence, like the first, >refers to a plurality of people, and (I construe) a mass, who all own the >thing in common. Adam thinks yes, and that the second ma'a behaves like da >("of each of us", rather than "of all of us".) I don't think Adam was talking about that sentence. He had a pro-sumti in the second position, and it does make a difference. But there is a prior question to answer: Is {ro ma'a} = {ro lu'a ma'a}? I don't think there is any doubt that {ma'a} is a mass. Do quantifiers by themselves have the power to turn a mass description into a quantification over the members of the mass, or is {lu'a} required to make the conversion? Strictly {ro ma'a} should be "the one mass of us". >Is there anything anywhere that says one of these two interpretations is >incorrect? The Book gives me little light. It is one of the recurring questions of the list, I know I've raised it often enough. We had sort of a consensus last time, that {ro prenu cu prami ri} means "everyone loves themself", not "everyone loves everyone", and that's how Adam was taking {ei ro ma'a bevri le merimoi}. It would be nice to have this settled at some point. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp