RE: [jboske] inner quantifier of e-gadri (was: RE: putative tense scope effects

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

pc:
> arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:
> <<
> 
> It comes about if that 'definition' is merely a gloss, and the definition is
> actually "(every) member of le'i broda" (nonimporting 'every').
> 
> >>
> How does this help? {le'i broda} is merely the set of things 
> selected and called broda -- no more property required here than elsewhere.

I was arguing that {le'i} can be {le'i no}. If {le} is defined in terms
of {le'i} then the referent-set of {le} cannot always be defined by
the individuals I have in mind. Essentially I want to argue that
(presupposition apart) {(ro) le ro broda} is equivalent to {ro co'e je
broda}, where sometimes co'e is to be understood as a shared property
and sometimes it is to be understood as "is John or Bill or Jim"
= "is a member of a certain ext-defined set".

> <<
> I understand tu'o as lacking any meaning of its own.
> >>
> OK. But {ro} does have a meaning. Admittedly that meaning is 
> vacuously fulfilled by any (non-empty at least) set, but that does 
> not reduce it to meaninglessness, only to pointlessness. 

I don't know what meaning {ro} has as a cardinality indicator.

> The same is 
> probably true of other relative PA in cardinality context. 

Okay. so'e as a cardinal is not meaningless but is nonsensical.

> It would 
> seem that this is a further argument (or the same one in a different 
> guise) for not having default crdinality but merely having 
> cardinality as an optional category there. This would solve a mass 
> of problems, it seems to me -- as well as being more realistic.

I agree. But I reckon that ro was chosen for the default in the
belief that it is tantamount to having no default.

--And.