| In a message dated 9/8/2001 4:28:30 PM Central Daylight Time,
xod@sixgirls.org writes: But now you have raised additional questions. The way you use tu'o: As near as I can follow all this, the point about {tu'o} is that, as an overt quantifier. it excludes any covert quantifiers or gadri and thus, in particular excludes the existential quantifier, which generates problems of various sorts (as it does, but not as many as the universal -- or some others). It also excludes the need to say {pa}, which is obvious in these cases. So it does not function differently, it just expresses it differently, with a resulting simplification at some depth of analysis. As for joining {pa} in PA, look at how differently {pa} behaves from {su'o} (string v. non-string, used with decinmals v. not, etc.); all these things are grammatical but some are nonsenisical (so far as we know now, any how). |