[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xod: > On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, And Rosta wrote: > > > To summarize the entire discussion so far: > > "all of" is certainly importing even if only by irresistible > > implicature > > But "ro" does not mean "all of"; it expresses a cardinal number, > > the number of broda that there are. If there are 0 broda, then > > ro = 0. Hence it is nonimporting > > > > The model of quantification favoured by John and xod is valid, > > but ro is not the lexical means for implementing it. (I haven't > > grouped pc in with John and xod, because I never understood > > his reasons for his position -- he seemed to give no reason > > but "that's how it is in proper logic".) > > > > So, John and xod. Are you going to acquiesce?????????? > > Everybody else has already voted jordo > > What was said here that contradicts what I wrote in "mu"? Would you agree that "ro pavyseljirna cu broda" is no more meaningless than "no pavyseljirna cu broda", in a universe with no unicorns in it? Adam has tried to give some examples where he thinks ro is meaningful -- basically cases when you don't know whether or not there are any unicorns (or whatever). But I'll take it you're not opposed. --And.