[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la pycyn cusku di'e
Well, that is one interpretation, but I take the "considered jointly" as part"is a mass/ team/aggregate/whole" not as modifying "components."
lei ci gerku cu gunma la spat "The three dogs is a mass/whole of component Spot, considered jointly"?
It makes no sense to massify a mass, you can only reasonably massify a heap or a set.
Yes. But there is no massifying going on here.
I would certainly to deny {ro gerku se
gunma loi gerku}, for what else could the components be?
That says that each of the dogs is a se gunma of the whole mass.
The components could be taken as mass as well of course:
ko'a joi ko'e joi ko'i cu se gunma loi gerku
Ko'a, ko'e and ko'i (together) conform a mass of dogs.
In that case {ko'a joi ko'e joi ko'i du loi gerku}.
(And using {se gunma} is like using {se du}.)
That is what the simplest interpretation of the gi'uste suggests.
There is no suggestion that the se gunma is a set, or a component
of the mass.
It is not generallyrequired that the component list be complete in these gismu, so saying {lovigerku se gunma loi gerku} is not false, merely incomplete.
Then x2 would be a component of the mass, it would not be all the components considered jointly. It's one of these: 1- lei re prenu cu gunma la djan e la meris 2- lei re prenu cu gunma la djan joi la meris 3- lei re prenu cu gunma la djan ce la meris pc says 1, the gi'uste says 2, and John Cowan says 3. I prefer the gi'uste version in this case. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.