RE: [jboske] Re: {lo} != {da poi}, & another Excellent Solution

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

Jordan:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 06:07:19PM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > John:
> > > And Rosta scripsit:
> > > > {lo blanu} isn't synonymous with {da poi blanu}. The former
> > > > is countable, the latter is unspecified for countability 
> > > 
> > > I grant you (i) but I deny you (ii). "da poi blanu" means "su'o da poi
> > > blanu", so it is countable 
> > 
> > What I mean is that the interpretation of blanu is unspecified
> > for countability. IOW, even though su'oda means "at least one
> > thing" (so is perforce being counted by some criterion or other), 
> > "poi blanu" is neutral between "is a single blue thing" and 
> > "is blue stuff" 
> 
> How does lo not already require countability though? If discussing
> whether "lo broda" == "su'o da poi broda", "ti broda" is completely
> inconsequential. The only issue is the meaning of "lo"---"lo"
> always has an outer quantifier (usually of su'o) and thus must imply
> countability, just like "su'o da poi broda" 
> 
> So what are you talking about?
> 
> As an aside, I think "da poi broda" is only valid as a paraphrase
> of "lo broda", and not as an actual definition of its meaning,
> because it leaves out the inner quantifier. (the "su'o da poi cmima
> lo'i ro broda" version works as an exact definition though) 

"(su'o) lo broda" refers to things individuated by virtue of 
being a single (countable) broda. "(su'o) da poi broda" and
"(su'o) da broda" refers to things individuated somehow, but
not necessarily by virtue of being a single countable broda.

--And.