[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>*Subject*: Re: More about scopes*From*: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>*Date*: Sat, 8 Apr 1995 19:42:28 +0100

Jorge: > 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}. More precisely, {koha} is like {lei}. > 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.) I don't think this is quite right. I think that irrespective of whether the men carried different boxes, the following is true le ci nanmu cu bevri pa tanxe goi koha i koha tanxe pamei I agree your {i koha blanu} entails that each box is blue. I think {suho koha blanu} would mean exactly the same; since koha has already been equated with a singleton set of boxes, "at least one of the members of the onesome of boxes" is going to be the same as "each of the members of the onesome of boxes. I reckon your example has a logical form like this: Ev, v is a cimei, Aw if w is in v then: Ex, x is a pamei, [let x be called "koha"] Ay if y is in x then w carries y, Az, if z is in x [i.e. koha] then z is blue > What is Livagian? I never heard of it before. It's my own invented language [it used to be called Sta]. That's why I apologized for mentioning it. --- And

- Prev by Date:
**Re: More about scopes** - Next by Date:
**Re: More about scopes** - Prev by thread:
**Re: More about scopes** - Next by thread:
**Re: More about scopes** - Index(es):