From robin@Bilkent.EDU.TR Wed Apr 28 04:18:39 1999 X-Digest-Num: 126 Message-ID: <44114.126.730.959273824@eGroups.com> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 14:18:39 +0300 From: Robin Turner Subject: Re: Masses [was Re: mut] la xorxes. cusku di'e > What you say about {mi se batci lo/loi ci gerku} is very similar. > However, be careful with lo/loi and inner quantifiers. {lo ci gerku} > means "at least one of the three books that there are in all". > You meant {ci lo gerku}, "three of all the books that there are in all". > Also {loi ci gerku} is "some part of the mass of three dogs that > there are in all", and you meant probably {lu'o ci lo gerku} > or {lo gerku cimei}, "some mass of three dogs". > > The inner quantifier is useful with le/lei because it quantifies > the complete set of what is under discussion or one has in mind. > The inner quantifier with lo/loi should in general best be left > unspecified, because it quantifies the set of all those that really > are, and we normally are not in a position to give an exact number > for that. > Yeah, I always get confused about this. It's actually become a lot clearer in my head as a result of trying to write the lesson on numbers (coming soon) where I use the pack of dogs example, and caught myself translating {lo ci gerku} as "three dogs", which as you say, would only be possible if there were only three dogs in the world of discourse. Presumably one could use quantification in cases like {lo xa braplu} (six continents) or with restrctive relative phrases e.g. {lo ci gerku poi batci mi}. Interestingly, in these cases {lo} would translate as "the" rather than the more usual "a". > > >On > >the other hand, it could still mean that I was bitten by a pack of three > dogs, > >because whether I view them as a mass or as three individual dogs is > subjective. > > In your example you're absolutely right. If you were bitten by a pack > of dogs and each one of them bit you, you might describe the > situation both as {mi se batci le ci gerku} and {mi se batci lei ci > gerku}. You can view it both as one relationship between you and > the pack, or as three relationships, one with each dog. > > But other examples are not that subjective at all. The piano example, > for example: > > >I shall propose that with {le} it is also possible that they carried the > piano at > >the same time, which from the point of view of the observer is the same as > them > >carrying the piano _en masse_. > > That can only be right if it is true that {ko'a bevri le pipno ije ko'e > bevri > le pipno ije ko'i bevri le pipno}. Whether it is acceptable to say that > this is true or not, depends exclusively on the semantics of bevri. Is > the x1 of bevri supposed to be the full carrier, or a simple participation > is enough to be called a bevri? I would say a participation does > not make one into a bevri, but in any case if we disagree we are > disagreeing about the meaning of {bevri}, not of le/lei. > Quite. > > There are examples where this disagreement is less likely. > For example: > > le ci prenu cu grake li parenoki'o > Each of the three persons weighs 120 kg. > > lei ci prenu cu grake li parenoki'o > The three persons (together) weigh 120 kg. > > Obviously those two situations are very very different, so you > cannot use {le} there in place of {lei}. > Good example - I may use this in the lesson! > > >du'u le ci prenu cu bevri le pipno kei nibli du'u le prenu goi ko'a cu > bevri le > >pipno kei .e du'u le prenu goi ko'e cu bevri le pipno kei .e du'u le prenu > goi > >ko'o cu bevri le pipno .i pe'i la'e ko'a .e ko'e .e ko'o cavi bevri le > pipno kei > >du la'e lei ci prenu goi ko'a .e ko'e .e ko'o cavi bevri le pipno > > Change {bevri le pipno} to {grake li parenoki'o} and you will see > that it is not a logical implication at all. The fallacy is in identifying > {lei ci prenu} with {ko'a e ko'e e ko'o}. The correct identification > is with {ko'a joi ko'e joi ko'o}, which is not distributive! > Point accepted! co'o mi'e robin.