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

[pycyn@aol.com]

In a message dated 11/7/2002 9:40:15 AM Central Standard Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes:
<<

>No, I meant "When I was writing CLL, I believed that 'roda' implied
>'su'oda'"

but obviously you didn't think that {lo ro broda} implied {lo su'o
broda}, because otherwise su'o would have been used at the default
as it is for le.

>>
I'm not sure that that follows, but I suspect that what you see is indeed the vestiges of a confused/confusing discussion and partial assimilation of the results.  I take it as another argument for doing away with obligatory internal quantifiers.