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

Re: [bpfk] {ro}, existential import and De Morgan

As for {ro} and existential import, I would like to highlight that if {ro} never implies existential import by itself, there is still a very simple way to add the existential import nuance: {ro su'o (pa)}.
In CLL Chapter 18 Section 8 Example 18, it is shown how {ro} can be combined with another number, implying that {ro} and this other number have the same value:

8.18)  mi viska le rore gerku
       I saw the all-of/two dogs.
       I saw both dogs.

In a similar way, {ro su'o (pa) da} would mean "everything, which is at least one thing".

Another similar option —although longer— could be {vei ro .e su'o (pa) da}.

mi'e la .ilmen. mu'o


On 09/11/2014 19:34, mukti wrote:
On Sunday, November 9, 2014 9:42:50 AM UTC-3, And Rosta wrote:

1. What does ro mean, and does it have EI? (A question settled a dozen years ago.)
2. Should there be a non-EI universal quantifier?
3. Should there be an EI universal quantifier? This is the question John seems to be addressing. 

4. In any bpfk revision of the CLL specification, which meaning should be paired with the phonological form /ro/?

I believe that #1 and #4 are the question I'm trying to ask -- which hopefully have the same answer -- and I'm sorry if I invited the detour into other questions.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.