Subject: Re: paroi ro mentu

From: "jjllambias2000" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 18:07:58 -0000

la djorden cusku di'e

> Now that I think about it, I actually think the book's example goes
> the other way. In
> mi klama le zarci reroi le ca djedi
> unfortunately we can assume there's only 1 ca djedi, and thus it
> doesn't say definitively. 

So the book's example doesn't go either way. As usual, sumti with
singular referents don't care about the scope of quantifiers.

> But if we assume the general left to
> right rule applies, and consider the same thing meaning "current
> days" instead of the "current day", it doesn't make sense that the
> re should change to re * number_of_days.

On the contrary, I think "twice every day" for {reroi le so'i djedi} 
makes eminent sense. What you want to do is give it the sense
of {reroi le djedi be li so'i}, twice in the many-days-period. But 
that's a different thing. {reroi} tells you the number of times
in one given period, never the number of times in a number of
periods taken together. So the quantification over periods must
always have scope over the number of times in each period. 

mu'o mi'e xorxes