Re: More about scopes

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

la djan cusku di'e
> Check out the sumti paper at
> ftp://ftp.cs.yale.edu/pub/lojban/draft/refgrammar/sumti, which documents
> all of these points in Section 13.

So it does! I didn't remember that part.

> As you say, "ro" is the default
> quantifier for "ko'a".

And also of mi, do, mi'o, etc...  I think I would have preferred piro
for all of these.  A single mass referent is so much simpler than
several single referents.

The paper says:
>>The personal pro-sumti may be interpreted in context as either representing
>>individuals or masses, so the implicit quantifier may be "pisu'o" rather
>>than "ro": in particular, "mi'o", "mi'a", "ma'a", and "do'o" specifically
>>represent mass combinations of the individuals (you and I, I and others,
>>you and I and others, you and others) that make them up.

Then I don't see the point of {ro} being the default.  {piro} seems much
better.

The paper also says:
>>Reflexive pro-sumti ("vo'a", "vo'e", "vo'i", "vo'o", "vo'u") refer to the
>>same referents as sumti filling other places in the same bridi, with the
>>effect that the same thing is referred to twice:
>>
>>13.4) le cribe cu batci vo'a
>>      The bear bites what-is-in-the-x1-place.
>>      The bear bites itself.

But what is {le ci cribe cu batci vo'a}?  Is it "each of the three bears
bites itself" or "each of the three bears bites each of the same three
bears"?  It would seem that the second one, but I'm not sure.  For each
bear, what-is-in-the-x1-place of the relationship is itself, but the
sentence is talking about either three or nine relationships, not only
one.  And how do we say the other?

Jorge