[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jordan:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 01:59:45PM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > Jordan:
> [...]
> > > The second one fixes the problem of the inner quantifier, and of
> > > implying knowing which things are in the set being talked about (by
> > > using le'i). However, if we use a nondefault quantifier on le, I
> > > think it is implied that the speaker knows which members of le'i
> > > gerku are being discussed:
> > > re le gerku cu xagji .ijeku'i pa le gerku puzi citka lo mlatu
> > > talks about a specific pair of gerku, not just {re da poi cmima
> > > le'i gerku} (some pair of dogs from the set)
> > >
> > > Anyone have answers for these?
> >
> > I don't understand why you read {re le gerku} in this way. It means
> > {lo re le gerku} = {re da poi cmima le'i gerku}. You seem to be
>
> [ I assume you mean {re lo ro le gerku} ]
Yes, sorry.
> > reading it as {le re le gerku} = {le re du poi ke'a cmima le'i
> > gerku} or else as {le re du ku poi ke'a cmima le'i gerku} (if
> > membership of le'i gerku is meant veridically)
>
> I was assuming that selecting from le'i gerku is done with the
> implication that the speaker knows which members are being selected
> However, apparently this assumption is unfounded? I can't find
> anything in the book specifically dealing with it..
I think your assumption is definitely unfounded.
> If one adopts your approach, in which that implication is not
> present, it can be regained, as you mention, with {le re le gerku}
> Which works for me
Good.
--And.