From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Thu Sep 06 17:56:22 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 7 Sep 2001 00:56:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 1754 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2001 00:49:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 7 Sep 2001 00:49:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47) by mta3 with SMTP; 7 Sep 2001 00:49:47 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.88.88]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010907004945.NZBJ710.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 01:49:45 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] ma'a as possessive: mass or individual? Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 01:49:02 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Jorge: > 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. I think it *should* be a mass, but for some reason I thought bare {ma'a} = {ro (lu'a) ma'a} and not {pi su'o ma'a}. > >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", eh? I thought that at least you and me had agreed that {ro prenu cu prami ri} = {ro prenu cu prami ro prenu}, and that the way to avoid repeating the quantifier was to remove it from the antecedent sumti by putting it in a prenex. IOW, the basic rule is that anaphors repeat the full antecedent sumti. The rationale was that this rule makes it easier to do versions with and without repetition of quantifier, whereas if the default was that the anaphor repeated only the bound variable then it would be very difficult to do the version where the quantification is repeated. --And.