Re: quantifiers on sumti - late response

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

la djan cusku di'e
> la .and. cusku di'e
> > How does this work? Are {suo do} and {ro do} okay as sumti?
>
> They are, indeed:  "at least one of you" and "all of you" respectively.
> You can precede any sumti whatever with a quantifier.

The problem with {do} is its individual/mass ambivalence.  While {ro do}
suggests that {do} refers to one or more individuals, other uses seem to
suggest otherwise.  For example, what does {do bevri lo tanxe} mean?
"Each of you carries a box" or "You all together carry a box"?

To be consistent, {do} should always be a mass (because mi'o, ma'a, etc.
are defined as masses, not individuals), and the proper way of saying
"each of you" and "two of you" should be {ro lu'a do} and {re lu'a do}.

> To settle another minor crux:  after "da" and friends have been bound,
> a further quantification is a local subselection, as with most other sumti:
>
>         so'a da poi gerku cu se denci .ije so'i da batci
>         Almost-all Xs which are-dogs have-teeth, and most-of them
>                 (i.e., most of the ones which have teeth) bite.
>
> Here "so'a da" binds "da" to almost all dogs, and "so'i da" subselects
> most (not literally a majority, but just vaguely "a lot") of those.
> If "da" is used again, it means "so'a da" not "so'i da".

So what does this mean:

        so'a da poi gerku cu se denci ije so'i da batci da
        Almost all dogs have teeth, and most of those bite (themselves?/
        those that bite?/those with teeth?)

To me it means "themselves", which doesn't agree with your rule (nor
with what you say it doesn't mean).  I think the last {da} doesn't have
a quantifier.  If you put one there it changes the meaning.

Jorge