Re: A modest proposal #2: verdicality

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

di'e preti fi la dilyn
> {xu}
> Quantifiers can be used before sumti, yielding a sumti; after a cmavo
> of selma'o LE, modifying the quantifier; and before a selbri (bridi?),
> yielding a sumti.

That's a strange way to put it. Better start from the full form:

        <quantifier1> LE <quantifier2> <selbri>

<quant1> is the real quantifier, <quant2> is only a cardinality marker,
it says out of how many you are quantifying.

The default quant1 and quant2 for {le} and {lo} are the following:

        ro le su'o toldi = le toldi
        Each (all) of the at least one butterfly that I have in mind.

        su'o lo ro toldi = lo toldi
        At least one of all the butterflies that there are.

The "inner quantifier" with {lo} tells you how many toldi there are in
all, with {le} it says how many things are now being referred as toldi,
so you could say {le re prenu}, "each of the two persons", but {lo re
prenu} would be strange, because it says "at least one of the only two
that are persons", you would be saying that only two referents satisfy
the selbri {prenu}.

Now, the short form {<quantifier> <selbri>} really means {<quantifier>
lo ro <selbri>}.  So {re prenu} means "two of all those that are a
person".

> There's also some weird use which seems to yield a
> selbri, as in {pa le re le ci ninmu}, whatever that means.)

That's a sumti, it's an extension of the above:  "one of the two of the
three women".  Of the three women you have in mind, you are selecting
two, and then saying something about one of them.  But notice that the
last selection is not the same as the others, you are claiming something
about one of the two, but not selecting which one.  {le pa le re le ci
ninmu} on the other hand, does select which one.  Of course, all this
nesting of selections would be quite confusing in actual use, so it
probably won't be very common.

> la lojbab. cusku di'e
> > But if we eliminate veridicality as the central tenet for the lo/lo'V series,
> > I am not sure that there is any justification for it to exist at all.
>
> Well, gosh.  That would free up some prime cmavo real estate, wouldn't
> it :-).

I think the distinction between {lo} and {le} is quite significant.
{lo} is necessarily veridical, {le} allows non-veridical use, but it
will mostly be veridical, and yet in most cases even though it is a
veridical description, it can't be replaced with {lo}.  So, even though
the veridicality property is there, it is not the relevant distinction.
It is simply a consequence of a more important one.

> I'm not sure we should be so hasty.  {lo broda} can be glossed {da poi
> broda}.  Can {le broda} similarly be glossed {ko'a poi broda} (or
> perhaps {by poi broda})?

Rather {by voi broda}, or {ro da voi broda}.

> If {ko'a poi broda} is not a legitimate
> alternative for {le broda goi ko'a}, I think it should be.

It is in 99% of the cases.  But you are still allowed to use {le broda}
to refer to somthing that is not even remotely a broda, as long as
context makes it clear what you're talking about.

> Is there a reason one of these should be primary over the other?

In {le broda goi ko'a}, we already know what {le broda} refers to, and
you are telling us that {ko'a} will refer to the same thing from now on.

{ko'a poi broda} is not very clear.  If {ko'a} is already assigned, you
may be making a subselection to those ko'a which are broda.

For example:

        le ci cribe goi ko'a cu bunre  i ko'a poi cmalu cu nakni
        Each of the three bears, (from now on ko'a) is brown.
        The ko'a that is small is male.

Jorge