Indefinites

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>la djan cusku di'e
>>        In essence, the rule I'm proposing that da-series sumti have nested
>> scope, but descriptors co-equal scope.
>
>Then we couldn't say:
>        ro le verba cu citka lo plise
>
>to say that each child had an apple, unless we mean that they all had
>the same one.  The right expression would be:
>
>        ro le verba cu citka da poi plise
>
>Unfortunate, because we lose {lo} for the most useful function.  I doubt
>that the co-equal scope is of much use in general.

You have assumed "lo plise" is a singular.  Since there is no explicit
quantifier, "ro le verba cu citka lo plise" does not say that each child has
one apple.   If Cowan is right and
>This argument makes me wonder whether "vo tuple" should be ambiguous
>between "vo lo tuple" and "vo da poi tuple".

then if you said "ro le verba cu citka pa plise", you would have no problem.

>There are other problems as well.  How do you refer to masses with
>nested scope?  The only way would be {da poi gunma ...}, since the mass
>articles {loi} and {lu'o} would always have to have maximal scope.  The
>same goes for {lu'a}, the only way to get nested scope would be {da poi
>cmima ...}.

lu'o/lu'a aren't descriptors, and hence may or may not be covered under
a widest scope rule for descriptors.  And I would need to see an example
where nested vs. equal scope made a significant difference with masses.
Two different subcomponents of broda are both "loi broda" because part
of the nature of the mass concept is that the portion represents the
whole - and you thus don't use masses to make distinctions
such as

      re da cu broda loi brode

trying to imply that each da was in a broda relationship with a
different portion of brode.

lojbab