[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
>
> > > 1- If the pro-sumti is overtly quantified, then the new
> > > quantification is restricted to the same set over which
> > > the antecedent's quantification was restricted
> > >
> > > 2- If the pro-sumti is not overtly quantified and is still
> > > within the scope of its antecedent's quantifier, then it
> > > is a variable bound by that quantifier
> > >
> > > 3- If the pro-sumti is not overtly quantified and it is
> > > outside the scope of its antecedent's quantifier, then
> > > it is taken to have a default quantifier (ro?, su'o?)
> > > that starts a new quantification over the same set over
> > > which the antecedent was quantified
> >
> >A, Might we ever want to get interpretation 2, bound variable,
> >but apply a quantifier or relevant LAhE to it? (E.g. if
> >the the variable already expresses a za'umei.)
>
> To answer that, first we need to sort out LAhE
> There are (at least) two competing interpretations
>
> I1. {LAhE lo'i broda} = {LAhE ro lo broda}
>
> I2. {LAhE lo'i broda} = {LAhE le selcmi be ro broda}
>
> I favour (I2), but Nick for example used (I1) in his {kau}
> expansion, and I think I remember Lojbab arguing for (I1)
> at some point too. To give a concrete example, {lu'i ro lo
> broda} I think everybody agrees is {lo'i broda}, but {lu'i
> lo'i broda} is {lo'i broda} according to (I1) or the set with
> {lo'i broda} as its only member, according to (I2)
The right one is whichever allows for gadri to be paraphrased as
LAhE+lo'i/le'i/la'i. I'm not sure which that is.
> Anyway, I don't see how A could be a problem if LAhEs
> work as in (I2)
For example, if the anaphor refers to a set, the question
arises whether LAhE ought to apply to the referent of the
anaphor.
> >But unless you think these, and A in particular, are serious
> >problems, I think your solution is likely the best one
>
> I was thinking that the default quantifier for mode 3
> should probably be {tu'o} rather than {su'o} or {ro}
I forget whether tu'o got fixed as zo'e quantifier or as zi'o
quantifier. At any rate, the zo'e quantifier is what's wanted
here, I agree.
--And.