[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Unlike And, I don't have a problem with saying that
there is exactly one Unique something. For me there
is exactly one number five.
I do have a problem with the idea that the quantifier
{pa} is in any sense a good choice of quantifier for Uniques.
It is plain to me that it is not. Quantifiers are not used
for counting.
To start with, {pa} is a relatively complex quantifier,
certainly more so than the basic {ro} and {su'o}. In terms
of these basic ones, {pa} can be expanded thus:
pa da broda == su'o da ro de poi na du da zo'u
ge da broda ginai de broda
or similar expressions. So if one is forced to quantify
over a Unique, either one of {ro} and {su'o} make for simpler
choices than {pa}.
The quantifier {ropa} (CLL-approved contraction of ro je pa)
can also be used. It has the advantage over {pa} that it will
commute with other quantifiers, for example:
ro broda cu brode ropa brodi
has the same meaning as:
ropa brodi cu se brode ro broda
(I'm not sure, but I think this will hold for all other quantifiers
besides ro.) It won't, however, commute with negation:
ropa broda naku brode
is not equivalent to
naku ropa broda cu brode
The second one will be true if there are more than one broda, while
the first one will be false.
So {ro}, {su'o}, {pa}, {ropa} are all different quantifiers. They
all give true statements when quantifying over a singleton set, if the
statement would hold for the unique member of the set itself, but that
does not make the quantified statement equivalent to the unquantified
one. The quantified statement is a more complex statement, with
whatever quantifier we use.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com