Re: plural

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

la lojbab cusku di'e

> No.  I think you are attaching too much significance to default quantifiers,
> which work like the space-time reference - they are applicable only so far
> as context demands.

Default means that that is the value they have unless otherwise explicitly
specified. The situation with tenses is different, they don't have any default
values. (I think some of them should, but that's a different matter.)

A more valid comparison would be with na/ja'a. If none is given explicitly,
ja'a is the default one.

> I'm not sure where the default quantifiers are on "lei" at the moment - Cowan
> disagreed with me on what we have said before, I think.

I hope it ends up as {piroi}. The consequences of {pisu'o} are just too
horrifying to even consider.  :)

With {piroi}, {lei broda} is a singular term (singular meaning that it is
neither universally nor existentially quantified, or rather it is both).
Singular terms are very good because they commute with everything, you
don't have to worry about the order of negation and everything else.
{le broda} is often a singular term too, when it means {le pa broda}.

With another quantifier, {lei broda} is no longer a singular term, and
you have to be very careful with the order in which it appears with
respect to non-singular terms.

The same with {le broda} when it is {le su'ore broda}. The sentence has
different meanings if you change its position with a non-singular term
like {lo broda}.

That's why I think {le [pa] broda} and {lei broda} are going to be used
much more than the others. They are much less trouble.

> I would say that without explicitly identifying the quantifiers, "le prenu
> cu tcidu le cukta" does not implicitly imply that each of the people read
> everyt single word of each book - it suggests it, but does not mandate it.

Certainly not every single word, unless reading a book implies that.
But it has to mean that each person read every book.

Jorge