WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


BPFK Section: gadri

arj:
> 1. The new {lo} will have essentially two different meanings with and
> without quantifiers.
>
> Icky and intellectual unfulfilling, but not really a problem. {ku} and
> {bo} already have different meanings in different contexts.

I don't think the meaning of {lo} changes when you quantify over
instances. {PA lo broda} is essentially {PA mupli be lo broda}, or
{PA da poi mupli lo broda}: {lo broda} tells you the kind you're
talking about, and the quantifiers run over the instances. But
ignore this comment if it causes more confusion, since you are
not presenting this as an objection.

> My objections to the current proposal that are as yet unresolved:
>
> 3. {tu'o} as an inner quantifier is, as I understand it, either a special
> case that magically turns {lo} into a generic mass article, or else is
> intended to be a part of the general quantifier system.

{tu'o} is not mentioned in the definition of {lo}, not even
in the examples. Its meaning as an inner quantifier has to be
proposed and voted on when defining {tu'o}, that's why I only
mentioned it under "notes".

> If the latter, it does not appear to fit stringently into the system.
> It appears to be one of these clever tricks that immediately make
> sense, but does not really hold when people try to think inside the
> system, instead of standing on the outside1.

If you don't think it fits into the system, vote against it when
it is proposed in the definition of {tu'o}.

For {lo}, all you need to know is that {lo solji} can refer to
"gold" generically. Inner quantifiers are not obligatory, and
none is assumed by default when none is presented, just as
with outer quantifiers. Do you see that as problematic?

mu'o mi'e xorxes





__
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/