Re: loi stedu be lo'e remna (was Re: quantifiers on sumti)

[jorge@phyast.pitt.edu]

la dilyn cusku di'e
> la xorxes. cusku di'e
> > I don't understand what you mean. If you accept {ta stedu lo'e remna}
> > and {ti stedu lo'e remna}, where {ti} and {ta} refer to different
> > things, then you have to accept that {su'oreda stedu lo'e remna}.
>
> Let me try rephrasing this.  In And's terminology, {lo'e remna} is the
> myopic singular.  That is, it's only thought of as one person;

Right. But I don't see why that should affect the other sumti of the
sentence.

> so all the
> various {ti} and {ta}s referring to what you probably think of as
> different heads actually all refer to the single head of the single
> person.

But {ti} and {ta} refer to things you point at. That's independent
of the predication in which they appear. If I say {ti e ta stedu
lo'e remna ije ti pritu ta} then you can't have {ti} and {ta} having
the same referent.

> Again, it's a question of what makes heads different. Because {lo'e
> remna} signals that we're considering there to be only one human, the
> mere fact that two heads are attached to what would ordinarily be
> considered two different humans is not enough to make the heads
> different.

No that's not enough that's true, but the mere fact that two normally
different objects are predicated about with {lo'e remna} does not make
them the same object. Consider a different predicate:

        mi e do nelci lo'e remna

>From that we can conclude that:

        su'ore da nelci lo'e remna

The same should happen with the ones who {stedu} as with
the ones who {nelci}.


> > What is the cardinality of {lo'i stedu be lo'e remna}? I understand
> > it to be the set of human heads.
>
> Yes; it's the set of all human heads, which has exactly one element.

How many elements has {lo'i nelci be lo'e remna} then? Also one?

> Perhaps one way to say it is that {lo'e} gets lifted up so that {lo'i
> stedu be lo'e remna} is essentially the same as {lo'e stedu be lo remna}.

That can't be, first because {lo'e stedu} is not a set of anything.

Second {lo'e stedu be lo remna} is the typical head of at least one
human, so it doesn't really give the human head, that should be
{lo'e stedu be lo'e remna} or {lo'e stedu be ro remna} or {lo'e stedu
be piro loi remna}, or something.

> > > (Are you saying {lo'e remna cu se stedu ro da} would be
> > > true?)
> Repeat the question, with {ro} => {pa}.  I don't think you said that, but
> I wasn't sure just where you stood.

No, I don't say that. I say {lo'e remna cu se stedu so'ida}, and I don't
see why that would mean anything different from {so'ida stedu lo'e remna}.
I see the {lo'e remna} not so much as an argument of the relation, but
as modifying the relation to one with one less argument.

> mu'o mi'e. dilyn.
>
mu'o mi'e xorxes