* Tuesday, 2011-10-18 at 00:47 -0400 - Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>:
> * Monday, 2011-10-17 at 19:46 -0700 - John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
> > > Maybe I finally understand what you mean with your "kinds = maximal
> > > bunches" idea. Let's see.
> > >
> > > I've been implicitly assuming that in {lo broda}, the tense inside the
> > > description is by default copied from outside it. So {mi ca ca'a nelci
> > > lo pavyseljirna} == {mi ca ca'a nelci lo ca ca'a pavyseljirna}, which is
> > > false if there are no unicorns.
> >
> > I suppose the tense (if there is one) is as contextual as everything else about
> > descriptions. The same as the bridi surely is a good guess in general, but may
> > be obviously wrong in other circumstances. For example, in generalities, the
> > tense (if that is the right notion) is probably past, present, future and
> > possible.
>
> Right, so I think I do understand you.
>
> Does this work?
But there's something of a problem: if the plural referent of {lo broda}
is meant to satisfy broda, what tense can give us e.g. all dodos ever?
The plural referent of {lo pu cipnrdodo} must satisfy {pu cipnrdodo},
i.e. must have satisfied {cipnrdodo} at some point in the past. But that
means we're picking up some dodos all of which existed at the same time.
So it seems we'd have to have the rule be that {ro lo broda cu broda},
rather than {lo broda cu broda}, for this to work. Unless there's some
excuse for tenses being magic here?
Martin
Attachment:
pgp6Q4kWT7BF_.pgp
Description: PGP signature