ka'ai

[Nick Nicholas <opoudjis@optushome.com.au>]

Jordan's ka'ai is what (I think it was me) was trying to do with jaika

We *can* say that the quantification default for a leka'ai clause is 
su'o no, not su'o pa.

And renders it as

mi djica leka'ai ce'u tanxe
= Ax, either x is not in le'i ka'ai ce'u tanxe or mi djica x

and... uh, what *is* wrong with that?

I mean, let's assume the intensional gadri was basic. We have an 
intension (mapping of expression and world to referent), such that, in 
World A, unicorns exist, and in World B they don't.

In World A, the denotation of both {lo'ei pavyseljirna} and {lo ka'ai 
ce'u pavyseljirna} is non-null.

In World B, they both are null.

... How is ka'ai worse than lo'ei, then? I don't get it.

Surely not that {le} presupposes the existence of at least one 
referent; you just used it to claim it doesn't, and you want a 
non-specific version of {le} as your Intensional gadri.

So we want the non-veridicality, and not the specificity. The le does 
the non-veridicality, the ka'ai does the non-specificity.

... I think. Still confused.

===
O Roeschen Roth! Der Mensch liegt in tiefster Noth! Der Mensch liegt in
tiefster Pein! Je lieber moecht' ich im Himmel sein! --- _Urlicht_
nickn@unimelb.edu.au http://www.opoudjis.net
Dr Nick NICHOLAS, French & Italian, Univ. of Melbourne, Australia