On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Luke Bergen <
lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> mmm, good points. I guess what I was getting at is, just because there are
> no default quantifiers doesn't mean that people are going to use context to
> assume them. (for example, you assume that {ro lo nanmu cu bevri lo pipno})
would conclude that at least one of them carried it too. If I was
forced to assume anything, it would be that none of them carried it by
himself. (But please don't interpret that as saying that I read "lo ci
nanmu cu bevri lo pipno" as "no lo ci nanmu cu bevri lo pipno"! Just
because two things happen to be true does not mean that they are
saying the same thing!)
> And also that seems weird. {no} is a number just like {pa}, {re}, {su'o},
> or {so'i}. It seems weird that using it as a quantifier of a sumti can
> directly effect the selbri in ways that other numbers can't.
Every quantifier affects the bridi in ways that other quantifiers
don't, otherwise they would be the same quantifier.
"no ..." is equivalent to "naku su'o ..." and also equivalent to "ro ... naku"
"no" is not the only quantifier that contains a negation. "me'i",
"su'e" and "da'a" also do.
"me'i PA ..." is equivalent to "naku su'o PA ...", and "su'e PA ..."
is equivalent to "naku za'u PA ..."
"da'a PA ..." is equivalent to "PA ... naku"
> I understand intuitively why that is the case. But it still feels strange.
> I kind of have to wonder if {mi na citka lo plise} and {mi citka no plise}
> really are identical (I know that the meanings of the statements are the
> same, but are the statements themselves the same as each other)
They are quite different, they have different meanings. I don't
understand why you say that I said that they were identical.