Subject: Re: quantifiers

From: "Adam Raizen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 09:16:54 -0000

la pycyn cusku di'e

> <For a universal quantifier with existential import, I think we can 
> use "rosu'o"/"su'oro", parallel to "roci", etc. for "all three". 
(Is 
> there any convention for which number goes first in these compound 
> quantifiers?)>
> 
> I like the idea, but I wonder if it will work. {roci broda} comes 
in stages 
> from {ro lo ci lo broda} as far as I can remember (and this 
explains the 
> order); I think that (ro lo su'o lo broda} collapses to {lo broda}

I'm not sure how to interpret "ro lo ci lo broda", is "ci" an inner 
or an outer quantifier? I thought that the compound quantifiers such 
as "roci", "so'upa", etc. claim that both quantifiers apply to the 
actual number ("so'uci le gerku" can't be expanded like that, I don't 
think.)

"su'oro broda" could be interpreted as "at least all broda" which is 
the same as just "ro broda" and doesn't imply that there's at least 
one broda, so I guess that "rosu'o broda" is better.

Another possibility might be "ro lo su'o broda", since the inner 
quantifier then specifies that the number of broda in the world is at 
least one. Also, we can connect operands with eks, so there's "vei ro 
e su'o broda".

mu'o mi'e adam