* Saturday, 2011-10-22 at 21:21 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 7:45 PM, John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > It's not in the quantifier, but in the predicate, "a quantity of water".
>
> I'm not sure what we are disagreeing about. I didn't say it was in the
> quantifier, I said it was induced by quantifiers.
>
> In any case, as And pointed out it can't be just any quantity or it
> would always quantify to "ci'i", so it has to be a contextually
> relevant quantity, be it a puddle, a glass, a bottle, a bucket, a
> drop, a measure, a body of water. We can either make it explicit ("ci
> dirgo be lo djacu") or leave it implicit ("ci djacu").
Whether or not {ci djacu cu zvati} can mean that three contextually
measured quantities of water are here (and I don't see why it should),
{lo ci djacu cu zvati} should uncontroversially mean that.
(although without ruling out that there are more quantities, nor that
there is perverseness in the counting of quantities - e.g. with one of
the three quantities being a subquantity of another...)
Attachment:
pgpmJ1ayasDjA.pgp
Description: PGP signature