Re: Quantifiers

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

la dilyn cusku di'e
> Hmm.  Would
>         le ni ke'a nanmu ne'i le kumfa kei be le namcu cu du ci
> be the panstakingly precise version?  (I'm using the currently floating
> proposal for the use of {ke'a} here.)

I don't think you can get any precise version using {ni}.  The x2 of
{ni} is a scale, I don't understand how a number can be a scale, but
then I've no idea how to fill that place either.  I'm also not sure I
understand {ke'a} there.  ({ci} should be {li ci}, {ci} by itself is not
a sumti.)

The painlessly precise version is {ci nanmu cu nenri le kumfa}, why do
you want a painstakingly precise one?

Maybe you could say:

        le namcu pe lei nanmu pe ne'i le kumfa cu du li ci

[...]
> Here's my point: suppose {ko'a} has three referents (the three books
> above).  Then
>         pa ko'a cu cpana le jubme
> is (of course) exactly one of the books is on the table.

Yes.

> In most
> contexts {ko'a} could be expanded into {le xunre cukta .e le blabi
> cukta .e le blanu cukta}.

Only when it has its default quantifier {ro}.

> But evidently not when it's quantified:
> there's no way to do the expansion grammtically.

There is, but it is not trivial.

To make it easier, say {[ro] ko'a} is {le xunre cukta .e le blabi
cukta}.

Then {su'o ko'a} is {le xunre cukta .a le blabi cukta}.

And {pa ko'a} is {le xunre cukta .onai le blabi cukta}.

With three things it already becomes quite unmanageable, except for {ro
ko'a}, which gives all {.e}s and {su'o ko'a}, which gives all {.a}s.
Other quantifiers are hard to do.

Jorge


Message  3: