RE: [jboske] ka'ai

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

Nick:
> 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 don't know what the le'i is doing there: why is this -veridical
+specific? 

> 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 

If "intensional gadri + broda" = "ordinary gadri + ka'ai + ce'u
broda" -- or preferably "ordinary gadri + ka'ai + ke'a broda" --
then at least it saves having a whole new series of gadri.

As for the logical/semantic side of things, I need to mull it
over longer.

--And.