Re: [lojban] "lo no"

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 10:50 AM, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20 May 2011 13:41, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  Saying that "lo" with no
>> inner qualifier means that there is always at least one is exactly the same
>> as saying that the default inner qualifier is "su'o", which xorlo explicitly
>> says is not the case.  Help me out, here.
>
> I don't think xorlo says the first. As far as I can tell, "lo broda"
> is as much "lo su'o broda" as "lo gerku" is "lo gerku noi danlu", and
> as much not "lo no broda" as "lo gerku" isn't "lo gerku noi nardanlu".
> We could have "noi danlu" as the default clause for "lo gerku", but we
> need not. We could have "su'o" as the default inner qualifier for "lo
> broda", but we need not.

Right.

Consider "ta", "zo sfofa" or "li ze". Those sumti don't have syntactic
room for an inner quantifier. I don't think anyone has ever proposed
that they have a default cardinality of "su'o". I think "deafult" is
the wrong word though, because a default suggests something that can
be overridden, but if all you mean by "default" is that they do refer,
then I don't object.

In the case of "lo broda", there is the additional question brought up
in this thread of whether an explicit inner quantifier forces each of
the referents of "lo broda" to be itself a broda, or whether it
doesn't. For example, does "lo ki'o sruri be lo dinju" refer to 1000
things each of which is a surrounder of the building, or can it refer
to 1000 things which together surround the building? That's an open
question.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.