WikiDiscuss

On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 11:40:11PM -0400, Nora LeChevalier wrote:
> At 07:30 PM 6/17/04 -0700, xorxes wrote:
> >noras:
> > > 2. I'm still resistant to the "Default quantifiers are abolished
> > > from these definitions, so that the expressions without an
> > > explicit outer quantifier are constants, i.e. they are not
> > > quantified expressions. ". Does this mean I can't say "le cukta
> > > poi cpana le kajna cu blanu" if there are 3 of them? If I can,
> > > then if you then say "nago'i" just what does it s it mean?
> >
> >{le cukta} is the thing or things described as 'cukta'. There is no
> >problem with it being a group of things. The difference with CLL is
> >that it is not quantified, it is not a claim about each of the books,
> >{ro le cukta}, it is for a claim about the books, however many, as a
> >single referent.
>
> What was broken about "le" that warrants a change?

le ci gerku cu batci le re nanmu == *exactly* six bites.

This is very far from what I would mean by such a statement.

> It appears that "le" now defaults to be non-distributive. How does
> this differ from "lei"?

In the process of trying to understand the question, I came across this:

http://philosophy.syr.edu/Chapter1(406).pdf

HTML:
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:-LOJzF4N0dMJ:philosophy.syr.edu/Chapter1(406).pdf+non-distributive&hl=en

Full book:

http://philosophy.syr.edu/mckay.html

Perhaps we should all read this and come back later?

The first chapter seems (I have not read it carefully) to boil down to
"You need something like xorlo to say many useful things".

Anyways, it differs from lei in that "le ci nanmu" is the three men I
have in mind, considered as individuals but treated as one thing for
purposes of this, but "lei ci nanmu" is a group of three men, presumably
with some defining characteristic that makes them a group (such as
physical proximity).

> Yes, "le" is sometimes used for groups. But it is also sometimes used
> for distributed individuals.

Really? With full observation of the implications? You have examples
from real usage I trust?

I may not understand what you mean by "distributed individuals"; can you
clarify?

> >{le cimei be fi lo broda} is {zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka ce'u
> >cimei be fi lo broda}: "that which I describe as a threesome of
> >brodas". That's {le ci broda}.
>
> I think of it more as "zo'e noi ke'a te cimei gi'e se skicu mi do lo
> ka ce'u broda": "those, which are 3, and are each described by me
> to you as something which brodas".

"te cimei" makes them into a mass, and then turns them back into
individuals; why take that double-step?

> If {lei} emphasizes that the brodeing is done collectively, what then
> does {le broda} do in contrast? Does "le broda" in "le broda cu
> kansu'i ..." emphasize (in contrast to {lei}) that each member is, on
> its own, helping?

That's how I would take it, yes.

> > > "PA loi broda cu brode" = "PA lo broda cu kansi'u lo ka ce'u
> > > brode". The "PA lo broda" is PA instances of "lo broda", each of
> > > which helps doing brode. But in the definition section, An outer
> > > quantifier can be used to quantify over instances of such a group.
> > > This implies that the result is a number of groups.
> >
> >Yes, that's the intent. Perhaps I should change it to {PA lo su'ore
> >broda}? But I don't think we need to forbid one-member groups, even
> >though probably we won't have much to say about them as opposed to
> >individuals.
>
> PA lo broda = PA broda (= PA da poi broda?) - correct? So I still get
> that PA individuals are kansi'u-ing, not that PA groups are.

da can't bind to groups?

-Robin