Re: Problems with Abstraction

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

Ron Kuris says:
> > Is it really that simple? Suppose you fill an omitted place with
> > a variable bound by a quantifier. Can that quantifier than have
> > any scope at all over the rest of the sentence? For example,
> > can {mi na citka} mean "Not everything is eaten by me", or
> > "Everything is uneaten by me"? It seems to me that in practise
> > we restrict ourselves to a much narrower range of interpretations.
>
> I'm new at this, but it seems to me that {mi na citka} parses as:
>
> (mi {<na citka> VAU})
>
> which means:  I don't eat.

Does it, though? I would like it to, but it doesn't on
certain accounts of sumti underspecification.

It seems to me that either constraints must be placed
on the possible interpretation of {zo`e} (at present the
only such constraint is that {no da} is excluded}, or
sentences with zo`e sumti will be susceptible to a huge
array of conflicting and sometimes contradictory interpretations.

It might be countered that because {zo`e} means "the understood
sumti", it will only be used (explicitly or implicitly) when
the addressee is perfectly aware how zo`e is interpreted,
but the fact is that in the case of implicit zo`e this is
untrue. In fact I think implicit zo`e is interpreted either
as {ba`e ko`a} (i.e. specific) or as {da} with implicit
existential quantification of maximally narrow scope.

> I think the "everything" is unspecified
> {zo'e}.
>
> If you want "I eat nothing at all", which I think is logically
> equivalent to "Everything is uneaten by me", don't you need:
>
> mi citka noda
> I eat nothing
>
> If you want "everything is not-eaten" then maybe:
>
> mi na citka roda
> I not-eat each something
> I don't eat everything

That means "not everything is eaten by me; something is not
eaten by me".
To say everything is uneaten: mi citka ro da na ku,
or {ro da zo`u mi na citka da}.