Re: TECH: Quantifiers (was: cukta)

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

> > I suspect that my reasoning is wrong, why?

la i,n mi di'e spuda

> I don't understand your problem - your reasoning looks fine to me.
> Just because it's veridical, doesn't mean it has to be precise. %~>

By "it", you mean my reasoning? :)

My doubts come from having read so many times that {ro lo broda} is
often a much more absolute claim than one intends to make.

If {ro lo broda} is the same as {ro lo broda be zo'e}, is it also
the same as {ro lo broda be BAI zo'e}? This keeps the veridicality
of {lo}, while permiting a context sensitive {ro}. I like it, but
I don't think this is how {ro} is usually explained.

mi'e xorxes