[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John: > Adam Raizen scripsit: > > > va'a is only a unary operator, and makes no sense as a binary operator, > > so it's pointless to say here that tu'o represents a non-specific or > > elliptical number. tu'o is used just in those places where a number is > > grammatically required, but none is wanted semantically. > > Well, that's *one* use of tu'o, but need not be the only use of it > So I think it can serve as zo'e as well as zi'o As a quantifier, I think it is always zo'e, but the question is whether as a quantifier it is tantamount to zi'o. That is, does it mean "it doesn't matter which of the basic quantifiers you use", or can it sometimes mean "it may be that the sentence is true with tu'o replaced only be a certain quantifier, but I'm leaving it to you to glork the desired quantifier from context". If the latter, some plausible examples are needed. --And.