[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la and. cusku di'e
> 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.
I don't see this. If 'le broda' is 'ro cmima be le'i ro broda' and the
cardinality of 'le'i broda' is 0, then any statement about 'le broda'
is vacuously true in the same way that any statement about 'ro
pavyseljirna xirma' is vacuously true. It tells us nothing about the
intensionality of 'lo'i pavyseljirna xirma' to say 'roboi pyxy. cu
blabi .ije roboi pyxy. naku blabi'.
In other words, it seems to me that you are equating 'le no broda'
with 'le'ei no broda', which IMO is not the case. 'le no broda' always
makes a vacuously true claim, whereas 'le'ei no broda' (though very
general and non-specific) makes a non-vacuous claim.
mu'o mi'e .adam.