Adam:
> la and. cusku di'e
>
> > What I like about this is firstly that it would settle what lo'e and
> > le'e mean:
> >
> > lo'e gerku (be zo'e)
> > = lo(i) ka ce'u gerku zo'e
> > = lo(i) ka gerku [under most-favoured proposals]
> >
> > le'e gerku (be zo'e)
> > = le(i) ka ce'u gerku zo'e
> > = le(i) ka gerku [under most-favoured proposals]
>
> What is the difference between "le ka gerku" and "lo ka gerku"? Is
> there more than one "ka gerku", given a certain value for all those
> "zo'e"s?
To take the second question first, this is an important one. Given a
certain value for the zo'es, the answer is a straightforward No, but
it is not established that the sentence meaning guarantees that there
is a certain value for all those zo'es. When you quantify over
abstractions, do zo'e have scope inside or outside the abstraction
(that is, is there reference/binding fixed inside or outside the
abstraction)? My own preferred but totally unofficial rule for zo'e
is that it is a variable bound by an existential quantifier with
maximally narrow scope, so zo'e are bound within the abstraction,
and hence {ro ka broda cu pa mei}. However, if there is no specific
rule for the binding/reference-fixing of zo'e (and if its reference
can be fixed arbitrarily within the abstraction, i.e so that it can't
be exported to prenex of main bridi), then {na ku ro ka broda cu pa
mei}, because there'd be as many {ka broda} as there are construals of
the zo'e within it. IMO that would be a Bad Thing, because all
abstractions would become intolerably vague, except to glorkjunkies.