WikiDiscuss

Rob Speer:
> On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 04:49:18PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > BTW, what would you take {su'o lo ci da} to be in CLL? Does it
> > imply/presuppose that there are three and only three things in the world?
>
> If it were {lo ci du}, it would certainly mean that. When it's {da}, I'm not
> so
> sure. It could mean "some things such that there are only three of them".
> It's
> tough to think of a good example for that. {lo mu da} could refer to the
> Platonic solids.

Or to the five fingers of my left hand. Probably any five things can be
described in some way such that only those five satisfy the description.
If you allow implicit restrictions, then the inner quantifier of CLL
becomes very similar to the one of XS. {lo ci mlatu} would not be the
three cats that there are in all but {lo ci mlatu poi bu'a}, three cats
that satisfy some predicate (i.e. that they are one of those three cats,
for example.)

> > I'm thinking of defining it as {LE PA me KOhA},
> > now that I have a definition for me. Then {lo noda} is {lo no me da}.
> > But the problem is that we don't have as yet a definition for bare {da},
> > at least in XS, where sticking a {su'o} there won't do.
>
> My gut feeling is that, for {da} in particular, you should stick as close to
> CLL as possible.

CLL never has bare {da}, it is always bound by a quantifier, explicitly
or implicitly.

> CLL turned everything into {da}, so it might be a good idea
> to
> leave that alone. And why doesn't {su'o} work there?

I guess it won't hurt, though it won't add anything either.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail