From araizen@newmail.net Wed Sep 05 14:34:50 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 5 Sep 2001 21:34:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 89172 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2001 21:24:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Sep 2001 21:24:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n8.groups.yahoo.com) (10.1.10.47) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Sep 2001 21:24:19 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: araizen@newmail.net Received: from [10.1.10.98] by fk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Sep 2001 21:24:19 -0000 Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 21:24:15 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: ma'a as possessive: mass or individual? Message-ID: <9n655v+ts3f@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 936 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 62.0.180.222 From: "Adam Raizen" la .xorxes. cusku di'e > >The question is, can this reduce to > > > > ro ma'a bilga lenu bevri le denci lumci tutci po ma'a > > [...] > > 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. Pending resolution of the problem below, I think that "ro ma'a zo'u .ei ma'a bevri le me ma'a moi" is okay. It would take a very strained reading to interpret ma'a as changing referents mid-sentence like that. > But there is a prior question to answer: Is {ro ma'a} = {ro lu'a ma'a}? Looking it up, the book on page 139 indeed says that {mi'o, mi'a, ma'a, do'o} are all masses, but that the other personal pro-sumti are ambiguous between mass and individuals. I'd like to keep the parallel with the other personal pro-sumti and have "mi'o" ambiguous between "mi joi do" and "mi .e do". "ro mi'o" = "ro lu'o mi'o" isn't very useful anyway. mu'o mi'e .adam.