WikiDiscuss

pc:
> So, {me lo broda} means "is a referent of {lo
> broda}" and what we disagree about then is what a
> referent of {lo broda} might be>

That appears to be the situation, yes.

> I say that the
> only referent of {lo broda} is a group of broda
> and you say — against the odds — that it is one
> or several broda.

Against what odds?

> Thus, I come up with a smaller
> group of broda (as in English) and you come up
> with a fraction of one broda (as in no known
> laguage, apparently).

I agree excluding the parentheticals.

> So, yes, your position is
> coherent, just very strange, at leas in this
> case. What, by the way, happened to {me} meaning
> "is an instance / example of," which talked about
> lo broda, not {lo broda}?

That will work for lo/loi/lo'i, but not for
le/la/lei/lai/le'i/la'i. Identifying {me} with
McKay's "Among" gives a definition that works in
all cases.

There is no need to talk about {lo broda},
we can just say: {me ko'a} = "x1 is/are among ko'a".
When ko'a is an apple or several apples, x1 is an
apple or several apples, when ko'a is a set, x1 is
a set.

> So, {so'i le pa broda} is also nonsensefor the
> same reason,

Right.

> but {piso'i lei ro broda} would also
> be nonsense again for that reason.

No, that one is meaningful:

piso'i lei ro broda
(= piso'i lo gunma be le ro broda)

"A large fraction of the group that consists of all the brodas".

> > > It starts to look as though
> > > these {pi} with nonnumeric quantifiers are just
> > > redundant.
> >
> > I think they are. I wouldn't want to define
> > them if they weren't
> > already there.
>
> How would you replace them, since by you they do
> have non-redundant uses: how do {piso'i le broda}
> without {piso'i}? I take using {fu'i} somehow as
> a cheat.

I would have lo/le/la as the only gadri.
I would say {lo so'i le broda} for "many of the broda" when
not taken distributively.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

___
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com