[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Mike S., On 12/09/2012 00:42:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:19 PM, John E. Clifford <kali9putra@hidden.email <mailto:kali9putra@hidden.email>> wrote:On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 5:23 PM, John E. Clifford <<mailto:kali9putra@hidden.email>kali9putra@hidden.email <mailto:kali9putra@hidden.email>> wrote: Oh yes, and you need s, not l, as the quantifier because these guys cannot move a hair away from their predicate without fouling the semantics. Implicit "o'e" restrictions are probably going to show up adjacent to the primitive formula, except when "a'a" and similar get in the way. Aside from that, isn't it safe to move "l-" and unsafe to move "s-"? I thought we agreed on that.So, the quantifier on o'e wants to be as short scope as possible, I.e., s. Just because l can move freely. Assuming that I even half understand you, I never grasped why you seemingly want to define l-terms as s-terms located on the far left instead on the far right. Likewise, if you were going to define "o'e" in terms of "s-", i.e. existentially, why wouldn't you push it to the right? Otherwise "ra je nmdnna vrba mmto'eka" would mean "there exists one or more things that is the mother of every one of 200 children" rather than "for every one of 200 children there is one or more things that is a mother of that child". You generally want the weaker claims with "l-" and "o'e" do you not?
John agrees with you about o'e, but as for l- he wishes for it to be the poor woodcutter's quantifier, i.e. your "no sa". It is silly to argue over what quantifier the phonological form /l/ should be assigned to, given that all forms are for the time being ad hoc and provisional. The unsilly point is whether there should be quantifiers that scope over the whole discourse. You and John both think it's a good idea, I gather. --And.