[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 10:49 AM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@hidden.email> wrote: > > I've given you one plausible interpretation, that l is an ever leftmost > quantifier that picks out a bunch of items and sticks with thm throughout > its scope. It does the trick and is a familiar feature of natural > languages. There are problems with it, xorxes insists, and so it may need > some work, but it is not obviously crippled from the getgo. The minor problem I find there is, as I mentioned before, when the restriction contains a free variable. For example: ra vrba le mmteka cnbake Each child, their mother, they kissed her. "Each of the children kissed their mother." You would need to introduce some kind of lambda term for l- to be moved to the left, but I doubt we will disagree much about any of that. I would just say that "ra P le Q" is equivalent to "le Q ra P" as long as Q does not contain "a" as a free variable and be done with that. The unsurmountable disagreement will come however when we consider what items are available for l- to pick, or indeed whether there is some predetermined set of items from which it must pick. For example, I would allow l- to pick whatever it needs to pick for: la ma djni le crbe mncake "John is fascinated by bears." to work as desired, while I suspect you may not be happy with l- picking bears in general. ma'a xrxe