ro

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

1. Apparently, if [Ax Fx] then [Ex Fx].
2. Apparently, {da poi} is restricted quantification.
3. So {ro da poi kea broda cu brode} claims there are brode, and there
   are broda.
4. It has standardly been held that {ro broda} and {ro lo broda} both
   are equivalent to {ro da poi broda}, or more generally that
   {lo broda} = {da poi broda}.
   I think this equivalence should be ditched.
   {ro (lo) broda cu brode} should be equivalent to
   {ro da na ku ge broda gi na brode} or something of that ilk. This
   has the advantage that it doesn't claim there are broda or brode,
   and therefore corresponds to (almost?) everyone's intuitions on the
   matter.

That should satisfy everyone, no?

coo, mie And