From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Jul 05 05:30:40 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 5 Jul 2002 12:30:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 70372 invoked from network); 5 Jul 2002 12:30:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Jul 2002 12:30:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.45) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Jul 2002 12:30:39 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 05:30:39 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 05 Jul 2002 12:30:39 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] pro-sumti question Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 12:30:39 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jul 2002 12:30:39.0769 (UTC) FILETIME=[C59B9890:01C2241F] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la greg cusku di'e >I can't now work out what {le remei} actually means. How would it differ >from {lei remei}? le remei = each of the pairs lei remei = all the pairs together >It is, however likely that {lu'o le gerku .e le mlatu cu tatpi} doesn't >mean >that all of them are tired. Otherwise an officer telling his superior "lei >nanmu cu tatpi" would not be telling the truth. For {lei nanmu cu tatpi} to be true, it is not necessary that {ro le nanmu cu tatpi} be true. However, {pa le nanmu cu tatpi} does not entail {lei nanmu cu tatpi}. If the officer tells his superior {lei nanmu cu tatpi} just because one of them is, he would not be telling the truth. The group as a whole should be tired. >I think this is one place where the book is right in the wrong way. The >implicit quantifiers on lei don't work as they should. A mass, considered >as >a mass, is either tired or isn't (otherwise masses are as useful as sets). >We can't have a situation where {lei nanmu cu tatpi .ije naku lei nanmu cu >tatpi} is true. Right. At least not any more than {mi ge tatpi ginai tatpi}. >I'm going around in circles saying nothing here, so here are the main >points, which should go of into three seperate threads: > >- How do we refer to the referents of the sumtis of the last sentence? (I >think some sort of prosumti should be experimented with) The problem is that we don't want such precision. For example, we may have something like "X said such and such. Y said such and such. Then _they_ went away." In your scheme, you would get a prosumti for "Y and what Y said", not one for "X and Y". The prosumti we want here is necessarily vague, and {le remei} (or {le romoi}, or whatever number works best in context) I think is the best we have. I used this method a few times in the Alice translation. >- What do we do about these stupid-mass-things (pe'i la djan cowan po'o >ka'e >ciksi). It makes no sense to be able to say {loi cmacu cu crinu} because I >decided that dying my own hair green wasn't enough. But notice that {pisu'o} is the right quantifier for {loi}, just like {su'o} is for {lo}. {loi smacu cu crino} says that some mice are green, about the same as {lo smacu cu crino}, since there is not much difference here in being green together or individually. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com