Re: quantifiers on sumti - late response

[Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>]

la xorxes cu ciska cusku di'e:
>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}.

Given the way we use masses, quantifiers greater than one don't seem to
mean much -- "re lei prenu" is apparently one of those cases where it's
grammatical but doesn't mean much.  Would it be appropriate then to
define "[Quant > 1] [mass]" to be shorthand for "[Quant > 1] lu'a
[mass]" so that "re do" means "re lu'a do" (two of you) and "repa lei
respa" means "repa lu'a lei respa" (21 of the in-mind mass of reptiles)?
The form is probably going to be used, and the meaning is quite
understandable.
                     ____
 Chris Bogart        \  /  ftp://ftp.csn.net/cbogart/html/homepage.html
 Quetzal Consulting   \/   cbogart@quetzal.com