From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Jul 04 12:27:04 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 4 Jul 2002 19:27:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 76315 invoked from network); 4 Jul 2002 19:27:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Jul 2002 19:27:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.77) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Jul 2002 19:27:04 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 12:27:04 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 19:27:03 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] pro-sumti question Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 19:27:03 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jul 2002 19:27:04.0291 (UTC) FILETIME=[C7215B30:01C22390] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la pycyn cusku di'e >Now, to be sure, the implicit external >quantifier on {le} is {ro}, so we are referring to all the dyadic masses I >have in mind, but that is presumably just the one composed of the dog(s) >and >the cat(s). But that does NOT mean we are referring to the WHOLE of that >mass. Absent some specific indication, we are dealing {pisu'o}ness. That doesn't make sense to me. {le broda} refers to each of the broda I have in mind, be it {le gerku} (each dog), {le gunma} (each mass), or {le remei} (each pair). It does not refer to some part of a dog, some part of a mass, or some part of a pair. For that I'd have to say explicitly {pisu'o le broda}. The implicit quantifier of {lei} plays no role here. >Now, clearly if one dog in the mass of critters is tired, >the some part of that mass is tired and so, in Lojban, the mass is tired: >{le >remei cu tatpi}. It may be unreasonable, but it is by the Book. I'm not sure it is by the Book, I don't have it with me now so I can't check, but does it go as far as to say that? I thought it only messed up the implicit quantifier of {lei}. In any case, when the Book makes no sense, I don't follow it. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com