[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- In jboske@yahoogroups.com, "Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@...> wrote:
>
> On 9/22/06, John E. Clifford <clifford-j@...> wrote:
> > --- In jboske@yahoogroups.com, "Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@> wrote:
> > >
> > > There is no model in which {mi djica lo pavyseljirna} is true
> > > and {da poi pavyseljirna zo'u mi djica da} is false.
> >
> > Sorry, I was reading into your statement. You mean that his is how to
> > do the broad-scope specific reading, not the usual English one. I
> > agree with that. How, then, do you do the narrow-scope, generic
reading?
>
> No, that's not what I mean. There is no broad-scope/narrow-scope
> distinction if {lo pavyseljirna} is a referring term.
But referring expressions are also quantifiers, whence anaphora. Even
if you don't think of them as quantifiers, they still have scope.
> The distinction
> is only possible when dealing with a quantified term, then the
quantifier
> can be outside or inside some other operator. With my interpretation
> of {lo pavyseljirna}, the two readings you mean will not correspond to
> two scope possibilities within the same model, but to two different
models
> altogether. (Of course the two-scope distinction is still available when
> using quantified terms and some other scope operator for the quantifier
> to interact with, it is not available when using just the simple
referring
> term.)