«reı» being distributive -- is this right?

[acotis]

This word is often used in examples as the quintessential non-distributive predicate (if 5 people surround a campfire then not each of the 5 people surrounds it). However, the phrasing of the definition is singular ("___ is around ___; ___ surrounds ___") and the distributivity data is entered as (d d). Is this right? Is there a different predicate we should use for the plural "surround"? Is that predicate just mu rıe?

[robintown]

Currently the "5 people surround a campfire" example is expressible as Rẻı sa më fé pỏq na lóe. Maybe a little verbose, but it doesn't feel wrong to me at all

[robintown]

(me in PO could make this nicer)

[xorxes]

Given exhibitor serials, moving me to PO seems unnnecessary, you can say rei sa me fe poq lóe (one might even consider depopulating PO perhaps).

I would assume the singular definition of rei is just careless wording. See hie which is also sometimes used for examples of plurality. It seems that most words are defined as if they were singular even when they can be plural. I don't know about the distributivity data, but I think it was done semi-automatically?

[acotis]

Good suggestion, robintown. I still think though that this is a mistake.

xorxes, PO is still useful when you want some quantifier other than whatever exhibitor provides, which is probably going to be either baq or ja. See for example:

Dủa jí sıa pỏ mí Shỉ da.

Dủa jí tu pỏ sa rẻq da.

Note that the contents of a po phrase are considered to appear inside of a subordinate scope context, so this last sentence means "I know everything about all humans" (e.g. "I know everything that pertains to any human").

[acotis]

Same goes for mea, which is currently in PO, and for my lo (guo in PO) which can't be done serially because its complement is always a t5 clause.

[xorxes]

"PO X ga" is short for "lu POGA hóa X ky"

Having PO as a separate class saves you one or two syllables, except when you want POGA,

[lynn]

I just want to add that I also think reı should just be n d. The discussion about how to rephrase one's way around a d d definition seems moot, and discussion about me in PO seems not so relevant.

[dembim]

Addressed in #225 (pending approval at the moment), which sets reı.distribution = "n d".