[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la and cusku di'e
IM-strongly-held-O, non-pi quantifiers are compatible only with individuals-gadri, and pi-quantifiers should never be implicit. Pi-quantifiers are just a shorthand for "pagbu be". 'Individuals-gadri' = 'quantified gadri'.
I understand pi-quantifiers differently. To me, they mean: piQ lo'i broda = lu'i Q lo broda piQ le'i broda = lu'i Q le broda piQ loi broda = lu'o Q lo broda piQ lei broda = lu'o Q le broda where Q = ro, su'o, so'a, so'e, etc. For actual numbers (pimu, etc) the formula is more complicated but it's the same idea.
> It's sensible to talk about two > collectives of people, so if 'loi prenu' is a collective of people, then > 're loi prenu' should be two collectives of people No, no more than 're lo'i prenu' would mean two sets of people.
I agree for LE-gadri, which admit a single underlying set.
'loi prenu' is the collective of the set of all people. If you want to talk about two collectives of people, you need to use "re girzu".
But I think {re lu'o lo prenu} should work. {lu'o lo prenu}
is a collective of some people, and there are many possible
such collectives, so {lu'o} should be quantifiable. Same
with {re lu'i lo prenu} for "two sets of (some) people".
There has never been a strict definition of how LAhEs work
though.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU=
http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_addphotos_3mf