[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
pc:
> xod@hidden.email writes:
> <<
> >>>plain le = ro da poi cmima le'i
>
> >>
> >>How sure are you of this?
> >
> >completely
>
> So, every time I utter le broda, I am making an existence claim?
>
> >>
> Well, I'm glad to hear someone say so. & would probably claim that
> {ro} does not make an existence claim,
yes
> though the implicit internal {su'o} does
I overlooked this in my earlier reply to xod. Given that {le broda}
is officially {le su'o broda}, you are right, of course, except in
that IMO the inner quantifier falls within what is nonveridical and
hence not actually part of what the sentence claims.
IMO, the inner quantifier *ought* to be ro, though. That way,
e-gadri give us a way to do "a kind of": {le broda} = "each dog
of a certain kind, each of a certain kind of dog".
I imagine that the inner quantifier was set to su'o on the grounds
that you couldn't have in-mind a referent of {le no broda}. But
if the in-mind thing is an intensionally-defined set, i.e. the
referent of {le'i}, then {le no} is not excluded.
> (and the fact that you have picked them out). In any
> case, if there aren't any, the claim automatically goes to Untrue.
Give or take the issue of presupposition.
--and.