[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la djorden cusku di'e
> (1) ro le ci nanmu cu citka pisu'o lei ci plise > Each of the three men eats some of the three apples. > > (2) pisu'o lei ci plise cu se citka ro le ci nanmu > Some of the three apples is eaten by each of the three men. Different.
Good. The difference is that (2) is almost impossible, right? It requires some fraction of the apples, the same fraction, to be eaten by all, which is more or less impossible. (It would be quite easy for them to eat it in collaboration, but they can all eat it each on their own.
> (3) ro le ci nanmu cu citka picira'e lei ci plise > Each of the three men eats a third of the three apples. > > (4) picira'e lei ci plise cu se citka ro le ci nanmu > A third of the three apples is eaten by each of the three men. Different. Also, your english glosses for (2) and (4) should say "all of the three men", because "each" is shorter scope than "all".
Ok, as long as you don't read "all" as collective. In other words: There is some third of the apples such that each of them eats that very same third. Practically impossible.
> (I want to be sure whether we agree what the outer quantifiers > mean before we discuss how confused I might be about them.) .i'e
Ok. Now, when we have three men carrying the piano together,
such that none of the men carries it on their own, what we
want to say is {piro lei ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno}.
{pisu'o lei ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno} is also true,
because {pisu'o} can be {piro} in particular, but it
is not what we want to say in that situation because it
is misleading. It is like saying "I ate some of the
cake" when I ate it all. It is true but misleading.
In most cases when we use {lei}, like in the case
of the piano carriers, we mean {piro lei}. That's
why I consider {piro} has to be the default. Using
{pisu'o lei} in those cases, while making a true
statement, is not what we want to say. That one
of the men may be a supervisor changes nothing.
He is one of the team and it is the whole team,
supervisor included, that does the carrying. We
still want {piro} in that case. It would be false
to say that {piro lei re nanmu cu bevri le pipno}
if the supervising by the third man was an
integral part of the carrying. {pisu'o} is true
because it allows the {piro} case, but it is
the wrong quantifier to use because it also suggests
{pime'iro}, which is often false in those cases.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 3 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU=
http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_smartspamprotection_3mf