Re: [jboske] more lo'e

[And Rosta <arosta@uclan.ac.uk>]

This sounds to me like a rejection of the earlier consensus on lo'e as
a singularizer, in favour of the previously rejected notion of lo'e as
an operator meaning 'generally'.

If so, the debate isn't about scope; it's back to the basic meaning of
lo'e.

--And.

>>> fracture@allusion.net 12/12/02 05:06pm >>>
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 01:41:39AM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> I'm bringing this to jboske and switching to English on
> Jordan's suggestion.
> 
> We're discussing whether or not {lo'e} has scope over the
> quantifiers of following terms. My position is that it
> doesn't, Jordan's position is that it does. So for example:
> 
> (1) lo'e gerku cu citka lo rectu
> 
> (2) lo rectu cu se citka lo'e gerku
> 
> to me both of them mean "there is some meat that is eaten by
> dogs", while to Jordan (1) says that "dogs eat meat" and (2)
> is more or less nonsensical. To say "dogs eat meat" I would
> say "lo'e gerku cu citka lo'e rectu". I'm not sure how
> Jordan proposes to say "there is some meat that is eaten by
> dogs".

"There is some meat that is eaten by dogs" would probably
go as
lo rectu cu se citka loi gerku

> Jordan correct me if I have misstated your position.

You got it close.

I think:
(1) lo'e gerku cu citka lo rectu
Generally dogs eat/have eaten/etc a quantity of meat.
True.

(2) lo rectu cu se citka lo'e gerku
There is a quantity of meat which generally dogs have eaten.
False.

(3) lo'e gerku cu citka lo'e rectu
Generally dogs have eaten meat generally.
False.
(Suggests that way more meat is eaten by dogs than actually is)

-- 
Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net 
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku