[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
bob:
At 07:41 AM 8/12/03 -0700, Jorge "Llamb�as" wrote:
> >The issue here is whether "lo" = "su'o lo". There is no argument
> >so far against {su'o lo broda} being {su'o da poi broda}.
>
> There was one, but I can't remember it without going back to November 94
> discussions.
pc wanted one of {ro broda} and {ro da poi broda} to be importing and was
content that the other be nonimporting. The two arguments that I saw were
"Because true logical universal quantification has existential import"
and perhaps "Because it makes a useful distinction". Neither argument
persuaded anybody. I'm sure pc would see that as a confused
misrepresentation,
but it's an accurate characterization of my understanding of the arguments.
In 2002/2003 I pointed out that if "lo brick" is "a brick" (object) and
"loi brick" is "brick" (substance) and "ko'a cu brick" is neutral between
"ko'a is a brick" and "ko'a is brick", then "da poi broda" cannot be
equivalent to "lo broda". However, I prefer to argue that lo = dapoi
but that "ko'a cu brick" is NOT neutral between "is a brick" and "is
brick".
--And.