[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

ka'ai

Jordan's ka'ai is what (I think it was me) was trying to do with jaika
We *can* say that the quantification default for a leka'ai clause is su'o no, not su'o pa. 

And renders it as

mi djica leka'ai ce'u tanxe
= Ax, either x is not in le'i ka'ai ce'u tanxe or mi djica x

and... uh, what *is* wrong with that?
I mean, let's assume the intensional gadri was basic. We have an intension (mapping of expression and world to referent), such that, in World A, unicorns exist, and in World B they don't.
In World A, the denotation of both {lo'ei pavyseljirna} and {lo ka'ai ce'u pavyseljirna} is non-null. 

In World B, they both are null.

... How is ka'ai worse than lo'ei, then? I don't get it.
Surely not that {le} presupposes the existence of at least one referent; you just used it to claim it doesn't, and you want a non-specific version of {le} as your Intensional gadri.
So we want the non-veridicality, and not the specificity. The le does the non-veridicality, the ka'ai does the non-specificity. 

... I think. Still confused.

===
 O Roeschen Roth! Der Mensch liegt in tiefster Noth! Der Mensch liegt in
 tiefster Pein!  Je lieber moecht'  ich im Himmel sein!   ---  _Urlicht_
        nickn@hidden.email            http://www.opoudjis.net
Dr Nick NICHOLAS,  French & Italian,  Univ. of Melbourne, Australia