descriptions and quantification

[CJ FINE <cbmvax!uunet!BRADFORD.AC.UK!C.J.Fine>]

When I thought about Bob's response to my pre-relative grammar
suggestion, I realised I didn't fully understand the interactions of
gadri, quantifiers and relatives. Here is some stuff I wrote down to
get it clear in my mind.  I'm posting it because
1) It might be wrong- please tell me if it is.
2) If not, it might help other people who are confused as I was.

LE First, "le" means "(at least one of) the things I am (indicating by
means of) describing as"

So "le cukta" means "(at least one of) the things I am describing as
is-a-book".

LO "lo" means "(at least one of) the things in the universe which
actually ..."

So "lo cukta" means "(at least one of) the things in the universe which
actually is-a-book".

QUANTIFIERS PRECEDING

If we put a quantifier before the description, it replaces the "at
least one of".

ci le cukta
3 of the things I am describing as is-a-book

ci lo cukta
3 of the things in the universe that actually is-a-book

QUANTIFIERS FOLLOWING
Here is where I'm not quite so sure.

The default preceding quantifier becomes "all of", but I'm not quite
sure where the inner quantifier goes. I *think* it's like this:

le ci cukta
(all of) the three things I am describing as is-a-book

lo ci cukta
(all of) the three things in the world which actually is-a-book

[It's the last one I'm least sure of. Is this what it means?]

Then doubly quantified sumti fall out naturally:

re le ci cukta
two of the three things I am describing as is-a-book

re lo ci cukta
two of the three things in the universe which actually is-a-book

INDEFINITE SUMTI

We are allowed the kludge "quantifier selbri". I take it this means
pre-quantified "lo":

ci cukta = ci lo cukta
three of the things in the universe which actually is-a-book

The grammar also allows "quantifier quantifier selbri", eg
ciboi vo cukta

It is tempting to conclude this means
ci lo vo cukta
3 of the 4 things in the universe which actually is-a-book

but that would mean that the [vo cukta] in [ciboi vo cukta] has a
different meaning from a [vo cukta] tout court. This suggests that it
means
ci lo vo lo cukta
3 out of some 4 of the things .....

Is this right?

RELATIVE CLAUSES

Where do these fit in?

le cukta poi mi nelci ke'a
(at least one of) the things I am describing as [is-a-book which I like it]

le cukta noi mi nelci ke'a
(at least one of) the things I am describing as [is-a-book incidentally
I like it]

lo cukta poi mi nelci ke'a
(at least one of) the things in the universe which actually [is-a-book
which I like it]

lo cukta noi mi nelci ke'a
(at least one of the things in the universe which actually [is-a-book
incidentally I like it]

With quantifiers:

ci le cukta poi mi nelci ke'a
3 of the things I am describing as [is-a-book which I like it]

le ci cukta poi mi nelci ke'a
the 3 things I am describing as [is-a-book which I like it]

ci [lo] cukta poi mi nelci ke'a
3 of the things in the universe which actually [is-a-book which I like
it]

lo ci cukta poi mi nelci ke'a
the 3 things in the universe which actually [is-a-book which I like it]

With fronted possessor:

le do cukta
(at least one of) the things I am describing as [of-you is-a-book]

lo do cukta
(at least one of) the things in the universe which actually [of-you
is-a-book]

le do cukta poi mi nelci ke'a
(at least one of) the things I am describing as [of-you is-a-book which
I like it]

re lo do ci cukta noi mi nelci ke'a
2 of the 3 things in the universe which actually [of-you is-a-book
incidentally I like it]
 - note that the quantifier comes after the possessor, though my
translation has to turn them round. If I am right it implies that you
have precisely 3 books, and remarks that I like them.

re lo do ci cukta poi mi nelci ke'a
2 of the 3 things in the universe which actually [of-you is-a-book
which I like it]
This makes the weaker implication that you have only 3 books that I
like.


Comments, anyone?

                kolin