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

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

xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
> 
> >I think it is desirable, also for pedagogical reasons, to say that
> >
> >le ro broda = lo ro co'e voi broda
> >le su'o broda = lo su'o co'e voi broda
> 
> Yes, though it should be:
> 
> le ro broda = ro lo ro co'e voi broda
> le su'o broda = ro lo su'o co'e voi broda

Yes.

> >and likewise for lVi and lV'i 
> 
> I think it would be useful to have expressions for lVi
> without piQ. 

Yes. I'm not yet convinced that we have to accept that CLL is the
last word on this -- that is, I'm not yet convinced that we have 
to accept that lVi has implicit piQ. If we do have to accept it,
then I guess one will have to resort to experimental cmavo that
mean the same as lVi but don't have the implicit piQ defaults.

> I would say:
> 
> piQ loi ro broda = su'o lu'o Q lo ro broda
> 
> pisu'o loi broda = su'o lu'o su'o broda
> piro loi broda = su'o lu'o ro broda
>
> But since there is only one possible mass containing ro broda,
> the last one can also be written as {ro lu'o ro broda}, or just
> {tu'o lu'o ro broda}, i.e. {lu'o ro broda} is a singular
> term 

I agree 100%. Wouldn't life be easier if all that was required
for consensus among lojbanists was consensus between you and me!

> For other Q we have for example:
> 
> piso'i loi broda = su'o lu'o so'i broda
> "some mass of many broda". Here the outer su'o makes sense
> because there can be different masses of many broda 

I agree about the outer so'i, but I'm not sure about
the equation overall. We've disagreed before about whether
so'i in piso'i is evaluated by the standards of cardinal
so'i (= your preferred interpretation) or by the standards 
of piro (= mine). 

--And.