Re: plural

[ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>]

rge:
> And:
> > Yes: it was for this very reason that I not long ago suggested
> > stipulating that masses don't inherit all properties from their
> > constituents. But that is not how things are at present.
> It's hard to say how things are at present. If the mass inherits all
> the properties, then the fractionators make no sense whatsoever.

Well, let's hope the matter gets resolved so massifiers will work as
'collectivizers'.

What I would wish for is that from "lei broda cu brode" we cannot conclude
"lo broda cu brode" and vice versa. E.g. from "lei prenu weighs exactly 1
ton" we shouldn't be able to conclude "lo prenu weighs exactly 1 ton",
and vice versa.

> {lei nanmu pu reroi bevri le pipno} means "in two
> occasions, the men carried the piano". It could well be that one of the
> men was giving directions while the other was doing the actual carrying,
> but then what you are saying is that the directions were part of the
> carrying,

Only if "lei nanmu" doesn't automatically inherit properties of its
constituents.

How do you do something like "Each of the two men who jointly carried
the piano saw me" or "The two men, each of whom saw me, jointly
carried the piano"?

> {lei prenu cu muroi speni ko'a} means: "on five occasions, the persons
> were/are married to ko'a".

Does it mean ko'a was married to the mass of people? (As in "His wife
feels like she married not him but his family".) It should, if "lei"
is a collectivizer.

> > Or could it be that koha married five times, serially monogamously,
> > and that each spouse came from the mass of loi prenu?
> That would be {le mu prenu cu speni ko'a} = "Each of the five persons
> married koha".

No. We don't know how many people there are. All we know is that we
have a mass of people, and this mass includes, or perhaps comprises,
the spouses in each of the series of koha's five monogamous marriages.

---
And