Re: More about scopes

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

And:
> Obviously I see your qualms, but (a) the logic of the current system
> supports my interpretation, and (b) occasionally one might actually
> want to have a koha with reference varying in this way.

Ok.  Now we need a default quantifier for {ko'a}.  I propose {ro},
because I see {ko'a} as a kind of {le}, just like {da} is a kind of
{lo}.

For example:

        le ci nanmu cu bevri pa tanxe goi ko'a
        i ko'a blanu

        Each of the three men carries one box, boxes which will be
        referred to as "ko'a".
        Each of the boxes is blue.

(And not:  At least one of the boxes is blue.  Of course, I could say
{su'o ko'a blanu} for that.)

> > A related question:
> >        le ci nanmu cu prami ri
> > Does that mean "each of the three men loves each of the three men", or
> > "each of the three men loves himself"? What about with {vo'a} instead
> > of {ri}?
> This is an excellent question. I see no basis for {ri} and {voha}
> behaving differently.

Well, {ri} goes back to a sumti, while {vo'a} goes to a sumti place
(which could even be empty).  They could in principle act differently.

> I note with satisfaction that Livagian uses different anaphors for the

What is Livagian? I never heard of it before.

> two meanings. In Livagian they have the following logical form:
>
>   [1] Ea, a is a set, 3 is cardinality of a; Ab, if b is a member of
>   a then b is a man; **Ac, if c is a member of a then** b loves c.
>       "Each of the three men loves each of the same three men"
>
>   [2] Ea, a is a set, 3 is cardinality of a; Ab, if b is a member of
>   a then b is a man, and b loves **b**.
>       "Each of the three men loves himself"
>
> The bit of logical form provided by each of the contrasting Livagian
> anaphors is shown flanked by **. (For expository purposes I've
> ignored the specificity of {le} in your example.)
> [I mention this not to advertise Livagian, but to - I hope - clarify
> the nature of the problem.]
>
> I think it desirable to have both types of anaphor.

But we only have one, which one is it?

Jorge