Look, I have to agree with Jonathan. This discussion has gone on quite too long. We disagree. That's it. You believe that lo implies there have to be za'uno elements, I don't. Of course, since you do believe that, I hope you are prepared, because all of the trained assassins I am sending your way are deadly. You better start worrying about their cardinality. You've stated your case. I've stated mine. As far as I can tell, we both understand each other's POV. My problem with your arguing up to this point has simply been you've been trying to tell me what what *I've* "intended" to say, and that's what I object to.
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:52 AM, tijlan
<jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12 May 2011 13:56, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why should that be any less sensical if the amount of dogs in the room is zero?
> (Just like I can say to my kids "I'll give you all the dollars in my pocket" even if that number is zero?)
"ro" is an inexact number. I do not think it can't at all represent zero.
I'm sorry, too many negatives in that sentence. Can you restate that in comprehensible English? I don't want to misinterpret you.
That's irrelevant to my point, because the outer PA and the inner PA
represent different sorts of quantity in different ways. That "ro" can
represent zero as an outer PA doesn't mean it can as an inner PA too.
Consider: Does this PA have the same utility in "lo ro gerku" as in
"ro lo gerku"? The inner works differently from the outer. I already
made this distinction when I deconstructed the example sumti:
Of course the outer PA and inner PA are different and behave in different ways. My point is that I claim I can esily talk about "ro lo gerku" even if there are in fact none, in which case I am talking about "ro lo no gerku". You disagree
--gejyspa