Re: quantifiers on sumti - late response

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

And:
> > > I think the default should actually be an implicit {loe}, the "myopic
> > > singularizer".
> > I like it! Both the suggestion and the description. (In practice, that
> > doesn't differ much from saying that it's the mass.)
> There are differences between masses and myopic singulars, as I'm
> sure you're aware.

I'm aware there are differences, I'm not sure that I know exactly what
they are.

> {ci da stedu loe prenu} is probably false (or at
> least conceptually really weird),

Yes, but for the opposite reason that you think, I think.  There are in
fact many more than 3 human heads.  (I prefer to talk about {stedu be
lo'e remna} rather than {be lo'e prenu}.  I don't think the number of
heads is very relevant or easy to determine for general {prenu}.)

{ta stedu lo'e remna} has to mean "that's a human head".  Otherwise, it
wouldn't make sense to relate anything concrete with {lo'e remna}, and
that would be a shame.  Just like {mi prami lo'e remna}, "I love
humans", is mainly a statement about {mi}, {ta stedu lo'e remna} has to
be a statement about {ta}.  Can't we think of a human head without there
being a particular human to which it belongs?  If not, then change the
example to {ta tanxe lo'e plise}, surely we can think of a box for
apples that is not a box for any particular apple.

(In fact, I'm tempted to write {ta tanxe reno lo'e plise} for "that's a
box for twenty apples", i.e. a twenty-apple box, not necessarily for any
particular twenty apples.)

If you want to claim that only {pa da stedu lo'e remna}, then that {pa
da} has to be a {lo'e} type object as well, and only {lo'e} objects
could be in relationship with {lo'e} objects, which would limit its
usefulness enormously.

> and {ci da stedu lee prenu} is probably
> false too, if we're referring to a person,

But {le'e prenu} doesn't refer to any person, only to the particular
idea of person that you have in mind.

> while {ci da stedu loi prenu}
> can be true, if the person mass contains three people.

No doubt.  Exactly three things are heads of some fraction of the mass
of all persons.

> > > Since there is no point in using quantifiers with
> > > loe, that would leave {re do} unambiguously meaning "two of you".
> > Yes. Can you accept {mi nitcu re lo'e tanxe} on the same grounds?
> > i.e. "I need two of Mr Box"?
> > Well, I accept it as much as I accept {re loi tanxe} or {re la xorxes
> jambias}.

But that's different.  {loi tanxe} and {la xorxes} have not been
myopically singularized, they are singular on their own right.  If you
don't have a problem with {re do} for "two of you", (understanding {do}
in the m.s. sense,) then there shouldn't be a problem with {re lo'e
tanxe} either.

> > > Ah. {lo broda} is {lo suo broda} and {lohi broda} is {lohi ro broda}?
> > No, {lo broda} is {lo ro broda} and yes, {lo'i broda} is {lo'i ro broda}.
> > Even more explicitly {lo broda} is {su'o lo ro broda} and {lo'i broda}
> > is {piro lo'i ro broda}.
>
> So what is "a set of boxes"? {pisuho lohi tanxe}?

I guess so, although that's really a fraction of the set of all boxes.
I'm not sure what's the convention about fractions of sets, I suppose
subsets is the obvious choice.  If you want to be more precise, for
example talk about two sets of boxes, you could say {re lu'i lo tanxe}
"two sets of at least one box each".  {lo'i tanxe} is short for {lu'i ro
[lo ro] tanxe} "the set of all boxes".

Jorge