WikiDiscuss

> I can't go from your comment here to an answer to the questions in
> your first mail.
>
> -Robin

Ok, I'll fill in the answers.

> > I assume {ko'a goi le prenu} is equivalent to {le prenu ku goi
> ko'a}.
> > Are {le prenu goi ko'a ku} and {le goi ko'a prenu ku} also
> equivalent
> > to the first two?

Yes.

> > I assume that in {ci le mu prenu goi ko'a ku} and in
> > {ci le goi ko'a mu prenu ku}, {ko'a} gets assigned {le mu prenu
> ku}.

The first one yes. The second one, I think it was defined that
{le goi ...} behaves as {le ... ku goi}, so the assignment would
be as below.

> > What happens with {ko'a goi ci le mu prenu} and {ci le mu prenu ku
> > goi ko'a}? Presumably ko'a gets assigned the three people which
> > fulfill whatever will be claimed about them?

Yes.

> > What if the assignment occurs under the scope of another
> quantifier?
> >
> > ro le ze gerku cu batci ci le mu prenu ku goi ko'a
> > "Each of the seven dogs bites three of the five people, from now
> on
> > ko'a"
> >
> > If we use ko'a in the next sentence, does this force an
> interpretation
> > on the first sentence that every dog bit the same three people? Or
> does
> > ko'a refer to all of the five people that were bitten, even if
> there's
> > more than three in all?

{ko'a} in this case should in principle not be usable outside
of the scope of {ro le ze gerku}.

> > Is {ko'a goi no le mu prenu} at all meaningful?

No.

> > Does {su'eci le mu prenu ku goi ko'a} force existential import
> > into {su'eci} ("at most three")?

{su'eci le mu prenu ku goi ko'a cu broda} presupposes
{su'opa le mu prenu cu broda} (which has nothing
to do with "existential import").

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com