Does «luo» refer to "some people" or "a family"?

[acotis]

Suppose mí Shỉ and mí Gủ are parents of mí Sảq. Then is it true that Lủo mí Shỉ roı mí Gủ roı mí Sảq? Or would the luo be a separate object?

[acotis]

Oh, and does the answer depend on whether mí Sảq also has other parents or whether the parents also have other children? I can see luo having a sort of tuq semantics -- maybe it only applies to (parents + children) and (parents + aunts/uncles + children + cousins) and a few other combinations.

[xorxes]

I think it should not be restricted to the moderm Western model of a family, and it should not be restricted to people either.

I would also say that in some contexts a luo may emerge as a separate object, but you may not like that.

[acotis]

Re "modern western model": What other models do you have in mind?

Re "not restricted to people": Do you mean it should also include animals and/or plants, or that it should also include things like families of languages?

Re "separate object": What sort of context would make that happen? Are you thinking of something like how all the cells in a multi-celled organism are (kind of) a family, or something else?

[xorxes]

I didn't have anything particular in mind, but multiple wives, multiple husbands, non-blood related members of the household, etc. I'm just saying that limiting luo to father+mother+children seems a bit too restrictive.

I was thinking of animals, yes. I wasn't thinking of the taxonomic families though. Not sure if language family should count as metaphoric or literal use of luo.

As for separate object, I was thinking quantifiers. Whether saq luo would be three families or a family of three. If it's a family of three then you would need something like saq luome for three families? If this is the case, then a better definition for luo might be "___ are family" rather than "___ is a family".

[acotis]

Totally agree about multiple wives/husbands. I'm less sure about non-blood members. Then again, if there are three unrelated adults and two of them have a child, then the third adult isn't related to anyone else in the family by blood. Maybe there should really be more than one lexeme here, all derived from luo and all implying different things about the relationships involved.

(Another interesting case to consider: pets.)

Good point about saq luo. The current wording seems to imply the separate-object interpretation. Maybe luochēo could serve as the "some individuals" version.

[acotis]

(Oh, and of course adoption is another case where there is no blood relation, but one would be hard-pressed to say it doesn't result in a family.)