Re: Indirect questions

[JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

Lojbab:
>>Is not the x1 of valsi a single word?
>Not necessarily.    It could be a distributive plural (i.e. lo/le/la).

Right, I said so too. {ko selvlagau le du'u xukau do badri}
can mean "Say in one or more words whether you're sad",
but if you say it in more than one word then I'm asking that
_each_ of the words mean that you're sad, or that you're not.

>>Then {ro jufra cu valsi}?
>No.  A massified whole is not the same as its components.

We agree!

 >On the other hand loi valsi cu valsi seems plausible given the
>default quantification.

Yes, some masses of words are words: namely those with only
one component.

>>I'm not sure, but it seems that you could run into
>>inconsistencies if {lei ci valsi cu valsi}. How would
>>you define something that is a valsi?
>
>Given that the default quantifier on lei ended up as pisu'o,
>lei ci valsi cu valsi is technically true but rather meaningless, as is
>loi valsi cu valsi.

Right, if you take it to mean {pisu'o lei ci valci cu valsi}, then I agree
that it is true. But to me {lei ci valsi} means {piro lei ci valsi}. That's
one of the points where I must disagree with the refgram. {piro}
is the most useful quantifier for {lei}, and without it {lei} loses its
very convenient property of being immune to scope-trouble.

> I had wanted lei to have default of piro, buyt the
>refgrammar ended up with pisu'o

Fortunately for me I am not as bound to the refgram as you are.
I think usage too is on my side in this case. If people start using
explicit {piro}s in front of {lei} then I might have to follow suit, but
for the moment I don't see that happening, so I will continue
using {lei} to mean {piro lei}.

co'o mi'e xorxes