methods of resolving mismatches between place structures and number of overt sumti
> On Monday 04 April 2005 11:40, Jorge LlambÃas
> wrote:
> > On Apr 4, 2005 11:44 AM, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > It occurs to me that there is an
> > > unexplored possibility here (which has the
> same
> > > effect as other suggestions but comes at it
> in a
> > > different way): not all places in the place
> > > structure or a predicate need to be
> essential.
> > > that is, some places can be {no da} without
> that
> > > spilling over to negate the whole, {no da}
> then
> > > becomes — somewhat against apparent logic
> --
> > > just another choice among many for that
> slot, a
> > > breed along side saluki and pit bull for
> {gerku},
> > > for example.
> >
> > A "Nobody" that the messanger can pass on the
> road,
> > as it were.
>
> That "Nobody" is not {noda}, it's {lo nomei},
> or {lo nondza}, or something
> like that.
Well, for the story to be funny, it pretty much
has to be {no da}. An empty set/group.bunch
won't do since at least some of these are
somethings and I confess I can't make any sense
out of {nondza}, ?x1 is nothing, not something?
> > So if ta is a cat, {ta gerku noda} would be
> false?
>
> If ta is a cat, {ta gerku noda} is true, but
> {ta gerku lo nomei} is false.
> Whereas if ta is a mutt, {ta gerku noda} is
> false, but {ta gerku lo nomei}
> may be true (or you could say {ta gerku la
> ginxre}).
>
The interesting question is whether {ta gerku}
period is true or false. It is not clear to me
why an empty breed works here, though the mixed
genetic background does. Of course, it also gets
rid of the possibility tht there are dogs of no
breed whatsoever, that is, takes us away from
"breed" in a technical sense.