Re: lohe, lehe & ka

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

And:
> If we still wish to debate the matter, I would ask Jorge how he thinks
> LOI differs from LO.

{lo} makes reference to individuals, {loi} to a group as a whole.

> Is it just that "re loi" is inappropriate? That
> is, we can distinguish between one mass and another, but not between
> the individuals that compose a mass?

To refer to the individuals as individuals, you have to use {lo}, or
you can also extract the individuals of a mass with {lu'a}.
I'm not certain what you mean by distinguishing between one mass
and another. There is only one possible mass {piro loi broda} for
a given broda, but many different {[pisu'o] loi broda}.

> I think that's Jorge's view.
> This contrasts with my understanding, which is that we don't
> differentiate between one mass of broda and another.

If you mean the whole mass, we agree.

> On the view
> I have just attributed to Jorge, "ro loi" ought to mean "every mass
> of", and "re loi" should make sense (two differentiable masses).

No, on my view that doesn't make sense. You can have two differentiable
mass fractions, but there is no easy way to make reference to them as
two somethings. There is only one whole mass.

> On my view, there is just one "loi broda", and there is no need
> for an external quantifier.

I think that what you want for {loi broda} would be covered with
quantifiers by {piro loi broda}.

Jorge