Message-Id: <199411120407.AA27498@nfs2.digex.net> From: Jorge Llambias Date: Fri Nov 11 23:07:44 1994 Subject: Re: Cowan's summary #2: "lo" vs. "da poi" Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Fri Nov 11 23:07:44 1994 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu > However, I would like to propose instituting one difference between "lo" > and "da poi": that "lo" be given an implicit outside quantifier which > mutates across a negation boundary. I don't like this at all. {su'o } should behave the same across a negation boundary for any , be it {lo broda}, {le broda} or {da}, or any other. The quantifier changes to {ro} when going through {na}. > 6) lo nanmu na klama le zarci > Some men don't go to the store. > > mean different things: Example 6 is true as long as at least some men don't > go to the store (on the given occasion), whereas Example 7 require that > no men go. In effect, "lo broda" transforms to a "da poi broda" with > widest scope, even wider than sentential negation. What you want for 6) is {lo nanmu naku klama le zarci}. I don't see the need for complicated exceptions to the scope of quantifiers. With your proposal, how would the scope of {lo broda} behave in the presence of a {naku}? > Providing this feature is not strictly necessary, but may make the use of > negation somewhat simpler, I don't think so. I can try to think of confusing examples if you want. > because it means that both "lo" and "le" commute > with negation, i.e. are in effect singular terms. {le} doesn't in general commute with negation, only in the case where the inner quantifier is {pa}. This is the most common case though, so it is fair to say that it commutes. {lei} always commutes (I assume that its quantifier is {piro} rather than {pisu'o}, more on this in another post). Also, {le} and {lo} don't commute with each other. I'm not sure how your proposal would handle that. > Comment on this proposal? I'm strongly against. It is complicated and I think would cause more trouble than anything else. Jorge