Re: More about scopes

[ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>]

I realize I'd misunderstood when I replied:
> > (4)     le ci nanmu cu bevri pa tanxe goi ko'a
> >         Each of the three men carries it, one box.
> >
> > This is very different from (1), because now they are all carrying
> > the same box. Otherwise, when we next refer to ko'a we wouldn't know
> > which box it was!
> >
> > My conclusion is that {goi} forces the scope of {pa} in this case
> > to be wider than that of {ro le ci nanmu}. Am I right?
>
> Ax, x is one of le ci nanmu, Ey, y is a box, x carries y, y = Koha.
>
> That looks fine to me, & pa is within scope of le ci namnmu.

I was thinking koha had already been assigned a value.  But in fact it
is the value y that is being assigned to koha.  In this case, I don't
think (4) shd entail they all carried the same box.  Subsequent uses of
koha will remain within the scope of le ci nanmu, and it would not be a
problem for there to be three boxes.  E.g. le ci nanmu cu bevri pa tanxe
goi koha i. koha blanu
    "The three men carried one blue box each."
    "The three men carried one box each.
     It/Their box/Each man's box was blue."

---
And