Re: ago24 & replies

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

And:
>   "You can read every book"
>   Cumki fa le nu do cilre ro cukta
>
>   "You can read any book(s)"
>   Cumki fa le nu do clire xohu ro cukta

Yes, I can see now that {xo'u} might be useful. Let's see what happens
when it matters whether it sends the scope to the head of the highest
prenex, or to the tail of the next outer one:

        da kakne le nu tcidu ro selcku
        Someone can read every book.

        da kakne le nu tcidu xo'u ro selcku
        For every book, there is someone that can read it. (head)
        There is someone that for every book they can read it. (tail)

To get "Someone can read any book", we need the tail convention.


>   "I try to read a book [any book], I try for there to be a book
>      that I read"
>   Mi troci le nu mi cilre lo cukta
> or (perhaps?)
>   Mi troci le nu mi cilre xohu ro cukta

But
        da troci le nu da tcidu xo'u ro selcku
        For every book, someone tries to read it. (head)
        There is someone that for every book, they try to read it. (tail)

The last one corresponds to "someone tries to read any book".

> {Xohu} is deeply tied up with matters concerning "any".

Ok, I think I see it now.

> Incidentally, tho MacC may not have made the point, it must be
> wide-scope over some *irrealis* element, so "Someone *can* marry
> anyone" (Ex, Ay, possible: x marry y - contrast with "someone
> can marry everyone" - Ex, possible: Ay x marry y) is fine, while
> "Someone married anyone" is NOT okay, because there is no *irrealis*
> element for "any" to have scope over. If "any" were nothing but
> wide-scope universal, then "someone married anyone" shd be fine,
> & mean Ay Ex: x married y - i.e. "Everyone was married by someone".
> It's important to bear this point about irrealis in mind, because
> it means that if {xohu} means "widest scope" then when there is no
> irrealis element {xohu ro} will not translate as "any". Just in
> case it's not obvious, I shd add that our oft-used-in-examples
> {nitcu} is irrealis.]

I think I agree, but the point about "irrealis elements" should be
clarified. {nitcu} is not irrealis per se. In {ko'a nitcu ko'e} there
need not be any irrealis element, it's just a claim that a relationship
between ko'a and ko'e exists, just like any other {ko'a broda ko'e}.

What can be irrealis is the event that can fill a tersumti. The x2 of
nitcu can be an irrealis event, but I suppose it can be a realis event
as well.

A separate issue is whether {nu broda} can be an irrealis event, but I
suppose it has to, otherwise it will be very hard to deal with these
things.

Jorge