Anyway. Regarding whether sumti qualifiers and non-logical connectives
should be transparent or opaque: there doesn't seem to be a clear
argument either way based on utility. The transparent option is simpler
and results in clear meanings in all cases, so doesn't it make sense to
go for that?
Meanwhile, regarding the "maximality presupposition" of {lo}, I wanted
to bring up again Cherchia's version of the Frege-Russel iota. Quoting
from Chiercha "Reference to kinds across languages" 1998:
\iota X = the largest member of X if there is one (else, undefined).
(where "largest" is with respect to AMONG).
So {lo broda} refers to \iota of the extension of broda(_), with the
presupposition that this is defined?
So rather than representing {lo broda cu brode} as
Presupposition: broda(c1)
brode(c1)
could we then just represent it as
brode(\iota broda(_))?
That would make me happy.
We'd also have
ro da lo broda be da cu brode
-> FA x. brode(\iota broda(_,x))
with no need to skolemise.
I'm confused about getting, kinds, though. Is it the intention that
kinds are maximal, even when there are instances also in the domain?
That doesn't actually agree with the ontology sketched in that paper,
which has kinds being atoms, but perhaps we shouldn't read too much into
that.
Or is the idea that {lo} often accompanies a shift to a domain which
only has the kind?