Re: TECH: man bites dog problem

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

> > > > 1. I guess {re lo mu broda} becomes {re boi mu broda}.
> > > No, that's ungrammatical.  "re lo mu broda" is scoped in conjunction,
> > > like "lo mu broda" (note that there must really be only five broda).
> > So is there a way to say it? {re me lo mu broda}, I suppose.
> I think that is semantically ill-formed, as "ci lo re broda" would be.
> I think you need "re me ro lo mu broda", because what you have is
> "re mo su'o lo mu broda", two of the at-least-one of the five.

I'm not sure it's ill-formed.
{re me vo lo mu broda cu brode} is okay, so {re me (suo) lo mu broda
cu brode} should also be okay, since if the former is true, so is the
latter. (For an expression containing {suo} to be true, {suo} must be
replaceable by some number of 1 or more, not by every number
of one or more.)

> > I'm still not sure how to {lo}-lessly do:
> >    {mehi ro lo ci lo prenu cu klama} [under current system]
> >    "There is a trio of people not all of whom are goers."
> > My best guess is:
> >    mehi ro me ci prenu cu klama
> >    mehi ro me ci lo prenu cu klama
> Yes, I believe either of those will work.
> I now feel that the possibility of this kind of thing is the best
> joint argument for TLI_style "me" (makes a predicate which is true of
> each of the sumti referents) and for "PA broda" = "PA DA poi broda"
> equivalence.

New {me} sounds much much better than old {me}.
As for the proposed new distinction between PA broda and PA LO broda,
could we adopt it on a *trial* basis? It takes a while for flaws and
problems to emerge.

---
And