Re: ma tcini

la xod cusku di'e

> > I wouldn't mind that as long as it is understood that lo'i/le'i/la'i
> > are more precise forms of lo/le/la but with the latter never incompatible
> > with the former. So:
> >
> > le so'i prenu cu se culno le kumfa
> > The thing I describe as "many people" fills the
> > thing I describe as "room".
> >
> > le'i so'i prenu cu se culno le kumfa
> > The thing I describe as "many people" focusing on its
> > emergent properties, fills the thing I describe as "room".
> 
> Yes, since you can never have a collective without its constituents.
> Grice compels us, then, to use sets in cases where the individual,
> distributive reading is invalid. 

Does Grice compel you to use tense where the atemporal reading 
is invalid? You should never be compelled to add precision where no
precision is required. {le broda} should not force a distributive 
reading, else you lose the whole point of it being a constant. 
{le ci broda} is the thing described as "three broda", normally a 
group of three broda. When you want to say something about each member 
of the group, you use {ro le ci broda}. 

> But then, that means that le is used for
> distributive cases, which seems to collapse re le and le re.

{re le} doesn't collapse to {le re} in any case. {re le} is 
always "two of the ..." where "the ..." could contain more than 
two. But {le re} and {ro le re} would collapse, as happens with 
CLL-le. That's undesirable.

> > lo gunma be le so'i prenu cu se culno le kumfa
> > The together of the thing I describe as "many people"
> > fills the room.
> >
> > in which case the xod-collective could be a LAhE corresponding to
> > {lo gunma be}, probably {lu'o}.
> 
> Are you saying that the first place of gunma should be a set, then?

No, not a mathematical set, a xod-collective: a group without the 
properties that it shares with its members. 

mu'o mi'e xorxes


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com