From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Jul 04 16:24:37 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 4 Jul 2002 23:24:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 83715 invoked from network); 4 Jul 2002 23:24:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Jul 2002 23:24:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.78) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Jul 2002 23:24:35 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 16:24:36 -0700 Received: from 200.69.2.52 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 23:24:35 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] pro-sumti question Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 23:24:35 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jul 2002 23:24:36.0086 (UTC) FILETIME=[F5DCB160:01C223B1] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.2.52] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la pycyn cusku di'e >{gerku} refers to dogs in the usual way, {gunma} and {remei} refer >to masses in the usual way; the usual way to refer to dogs is as wholes, >the >usual way to refer to masses is as parts -- that is what the quantifiers on >{lei} say. I think that's a big confusion. For starters {gunma} and {remei} refer to relationships, {le remei} refers to things that go in the x1 of {remei}. If {le remei} refers to only part of a mass I could say {mi remei} on the grounds that I am part of a pair. That doesn't make sense. The quantifier on {lei} cannot get suffused into the relationship {remei}. One thing has nothing to do with the other. >I don't suppose the Book does say this explicitly -- it is remarkably poor >on >semantics and ontology. But, on the assumption (which I am obligated to >make >if I am to learn **Lojban**, rather than a kindred -- or not so -- >language) >that the quantifiers on {lei} are correct, that has to be the way it works: >{le remei} is, in context, exactly equivalent to {lei re danlu} and subject >to same interpretation -- if not quite exactly the same grammar. It is not exactly equivalent. {lei re danlu} refers to the two animals. {le remei} could refer to each of any number of pairs. If there were two cats and two dogs, for example, {le remei} could be "each of the two pairs". So even if you accept the inconvenient implicit quantifier proposed by the Book for {lei}, you don't have to create a strange interpretation for {le remei}. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx