From araizen@newmail.net Fri Jul 05 07:36:37 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 5 Jul 2002 14:36:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 7545 invoked from network); 5 Jul 2002 14:36:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Jul 2002 14:36:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mxout2.netvision.net.il) (194.90.9.21) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Jul 2002 14:36:36 -0000 Received: from default ([62.0.183.181]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 0.7 (built Jun 26 2002)) with SMTP id <0GYS001BQ5WW7U@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 05 Jul 2002 17:36:34 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 17:16:38 +0200 Subject: Re: [lojban] pro-sumti question To: lojban-list@lojban.org Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com Message-id: <008501c2243a$4e76b220$b5b7003e@default> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <97.2a030455.2a563c2a@aol.com> <20020704212259.B82150@allusion.net> From: Adam Raizen X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=3063669 X-Yahoo-Profile: araizen la djordan cusku di'e > You seem to be missing the fundamental point. The are only *two* > sumti. No matter how many animals are refered to. "le remei" being > "the pair" being the speaker's description (ala "le") of "the > referents of a pair of previous sumti". I don't know how much > clearer it can get than that, so i'm out of this thread unless ya > address that instead of addressing one-of-the-many-other-things-which- > the-speaker-could-describe-as-a-pair. Well, 'remei' could certainly be a pair of masses, such as a mass made up of a mass of several dogs and a mass of several cats; however the original sentence was 'le gerku cu jersi le mlatu', where the dog(s) and cat(s) are referred to individually. To refer to them as individuals in one sentence and then implicitly switch to masses in the next is probably at least misleading. If there were several dogs and cats, and the original sentence was 'lei gerku cu jersi lei mlatu', then referring to them all as 'le remei' would be more plausible. In any case, you could also use a more generic gismu to refer back, such as in 'le danlu cu tatpi binxo'. mu'o mi'e .adam.