Re: {soi}

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

And:
> I'm skeptical that it would be hard to remember the distributive reading
> if that is what one's interpretation has been based on up to that point.

The distributive reading is more difficult in general. I think that it
will be hard in general to avoid reading {le re broda} as {lei re broda}
when it matters. In many cases it doesn't make a big difference, but
when it does, it is much easier to deal with the mass case. In English,
to make sure that you get the distributive reading you usually need to
use the word "each". It may be more logical that {by} be distributive,
but it is more difficult to use correctly.

> > > In this case, we should start being pedantic and use
> > >    sumvla    = valsi be lo sumti
> > >    brivla    = valsi be lo bridi & not = "brivla" as currently used
> > >    selbrivla = valsi be lo selbri
> > > "Selbri" denotes a syntactic funtion, the grammatical predicate,
> > > and "brivla" denotes words that can function as "selbri".
> > > But in that I see no basis for a terminological decision.
> > A selbri may be composed of several brivla, e.g. in tanru.
> > In {mi mutce gleki}, the selbri is made up of two brivla: {mutce}
> > and {gleki}.
> So what could one use for "brivla"? {selsumvla}?

I guess. Is a selsumti always one-word, or is it the whole selbri?


Jorge