BPFK Section: gadri
As I understand it working within the system, since {tu'o} is the null quantifiers it indicates that NO Quantifier applies and this seems to be the case only with substances. Anything else justifies {pa} or som other number or at least {su'o} or {ro}. Now, of course, that does not work as well with the new interpretation of internal quantifiers, since they are about the size of selected groups not about the whole of the class (and so more like quantifiers with {le}), but it is still the case that only with substance do (whole-number, cardinal) quantifiers make no sense. I am not sure whether this line of reasoning is sufficient, but it is a cheap way to get substances without a new gadri.
xod <xod@thestonecutters.net> wrote:Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:
>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.
>
>
It's not specific to lo; it could be used with le.
How would you interpret tu'o in the place of a quantifier? When do you
think quantification becomes meaningless?
--
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."