TECH: Goats' legs and counting

[Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@COGSCI.ED.AC.UK>]

>  Date:        Mon, 22 Feb 1993 10:18:02 -0500
>  From: John Cowan <cowan@COM.THYRSUS.SNARK>
>
>  The statement that "da broda" by no means excludes "de no na du da
>  cu broda".  However, "re da poi brode cu broda" does exclude "ci da
>  poi brode cu broda".

I used to argue against this, but a few days ago I came to the
conclusion that John is right after all.

My position was that {re da poi brode cu broda} could be interpreted
as `there are two foos of which I want to say that they bar', which
did not appear to be falsified by there being barring foos other than
these two.

If that be so, however, then {no da poi brode cu broda} ought to mean
`there are no foos of which I want to say that they bar', not to be
falsified by the actual existence of one or more barring foos, which I
have chosen to leave without attention.  Zero being exactly as good a
number as any, if {re} implies {su'ore}, {no} has to imply {su'ono}.
And this deprives us from our favourite method of expressing nonexistence.

In light of the above, I henceforth take the precise quantifiers side
in kanbytuple issues.

Ivan