Re: Digest Number 217

John:
> And Rosta scripsit:
>
> > No it doesn't. {ci lo mikce} is a full sumti & means "there are three
> > doctors".
>
> Eh? It is a sumti, indeed, and it means "three doctors".

It makes an existence claim and hence can be paraphrased as "there are
three doctors".

> > > But I gotta ask: have outer quantifiers ever been an issue for li? For
> > > la'e?
> >
> > For me & xorxes, yes. Not because we're ornery, but because we tend to
be
> > first to ask the questions that have to be asked.
>
> CLL points out that the default quantifier for "li" is "pa", numbers being
> unique;

pa doesn't guarantee uniqueness: ro broda cu brode pa li mu = "each broda is
brode of one number 5". Because there is only one number 5, this isn't
a problem, of course. But the quantifier should be tu'o.

> for "me'o" it's "su'o", expressions being definitely not unique.
>
> > > I know And wanted a Unique quantifier (currently tu'o) to seal up
> > > the quantification of such gadri, but I cannot see why the default for
> > > them would be anything but tu'o anyway.
> >
> > I'm okay with that. Taking tu'o to be counterpart of zi'o rather than
> > zo'e.
>
> No problem there. But a default quantifier is just that, default; it can
> be overridden. To really *prohibit* quantification requires a grammar
> change.

The best solution is just to assign a meaning to quantifier+gadri, rather
than forbid it.

> > Currently it is {(ro) la smifs} and {lai smifs}.
>
> I would expect "la smifs" and "lai smif".
>
> > I don't know what either of them mean. Is Johnny Marr su'o la smifs?
>
> No.
>
> > Or is la/lai a distinction without a difference?
>
> "LA foox" means "LE selcme be zo foox", so "la smifs" refers to an
> individual (which may of course have parts, like any individual), named
> "smifs";

So is {re la smifs} nonsensical?

> "lai smif" is a mass composed of individuals each of which
> (within the usual constraints of masses) is named "smif". You can't
> subdivide an individual without a full selbri.

Okay.

> > > You can have two groups called The Smiths.
> >
> > Homonymy.
>
> No, LA-expressions exhibit neither homonymy nor polysemy. la djan. is
> "The one(s) of all those named 'John' that I have in mind."

Homonymy for English. The Lojban is different, and I keep on getting
my head round it and then forgetting again. Taking your characterization
of Lojban cmene as corrent, I think they are best thought of as
brivla (with a restricted distribution), and a-gadri as varieties of
e-gadri.

--And.