Re: [jboske] lo/le definition

[Invent Yourself <xod@thestonecutters.net>]

On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group wrote:

> Nora observes that since the ultimate definition of lo broda and le broda
> pertains to things that fill the x1 of broda, and since for various broda,
> the x1 place is expressed as individuals, sets, masses, and what have you,
> then le/lo manifestly MUST be ambiguous amongst those meanings, regardless
> of the specified default quantifiers and what people have deduced from the
> assignment of such quantifiers.


This is a strange argument. Who says that lo broda must be meaningful for
any conceivable sumti place?



-- 
// if (!terrorist)
// ignore ();
// else
collect_data ();