Re: plural

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

la djan cusku di'e

> Consider the following excerpt from the draft textbook, pp. 5-30-31 of the
> printed version:
>
[...]
> # If we do not use piro, the Lojban implicitly is interpreted as:
> #
> #               pisu'o lei ci prenu cu bevri le botpi
> #
> # which would allow one of the three to perform the act on behalf of both
> # [all? - JC] of them.  The default quantifiers for all three mass descriptors
> # are "pisu'o loi/lei/lai ro (description)".

I really don't see what's the benefit of this. What's the advantage of letting
{lei ci prenu cu bevri le botpi} mean that only one of the three carried it?

A different thing is to say that for the three of them to carry it, it is
enough that the bottle be in the hands of only one, but somehow they were
acting as a group. Then it would be the whole mass doing the carrying.


> # Clearly, in Lojban, the choice of descriptors takes some care, but the
> # result is considerable power and flexibility of expression.
>
> Now I find that to be an admirably clear exposition, not only of the specific
> point about default quantifiers, but about the default quantifier for "lei",
> the distributivity of "le" and multiple "le"s, and even the matter of "any".

I agree it is very clear, although it doesn't explain why {pisu'o lei} is
preferred to {piro lei} as the default. (I didn't really see anything to do
with the matter of "any".)

> I agree with everything in it.  If anyone disagrees, let him speak now or
> forever hold his peace.  :-)

I only disagree with the default choice for lei, otherwise I agree with the
explanations.

Jorge