WikiDiscuss

I am not delighted to learn that someone would actually use such a gloppy expression as {le goi ko'a prenu}. On the other hand, things like that might provide some help for issues oof which of teh several coterminal sumti is meant; maybe {le goi k'oa ci lo prenu} v. {le ci lo goi ko'a prenu}. And maybe not; we would still need the afterthought cases. But this problem turns up all over the place apparently (what ever happened to "uniquely parsible"? I guess it means "has exactly one parse, which may or may not have ans significance for the meaning of the sentence.) As does the problem of what pronouns (assigned or ad hoc) refer to when they refer to things referred to by functions of some quantifier (the intended reading apparently of the dog biting sentence is that {re nanmu} is a function from dogs — at least *these* dogs --to pairs of men (all particular quantifiers can be treated that way). Does {ko'a} attached then pick up the function or does it pick one of the pairs or
all three of them or the three to six men or ...?
I don't know of any proposals on any of these issues and don't have any of my own at the moment. Mark that down on the GOI to do list.

---

> goi unifies its two arguments so that they refer to the same thing. If one is
> defined and the other isn't, the undefined one gets the meaning of the
> defined one. If both are undefined, they are linked to refer to the same
> undefined thing, which may be assigned later. If both are defined, using goi
> is an error.
I assume {ko'a goi le prenu} is equivalent to {le prenu ku goi ko'a}.
Are {le prenu goi ko'a ku} and {le goi ko'a prenu ku} also equivalent
to the first two?

I assume that in {ci le mu prenu goi ko'a ku} and in
{ci le goi ko'a mu prenu ku}, {ko'a} gets assigned {le mu prenu ku}.

What happens with {ko'a goi ci le mu prenu} and {ci le mu prenu ku
goi ko'a}? Presumably ko'a gets assigned the three people which
fulfill whatever will be claimed about them?

What if the assignment occurs under the scope of another quantifier?

ro le ze gerku cu batci ci le mu prenu ku goi ko'a
"Each of the seven dogs bites three of the five people, from now on ko'a"

If we use ko'a in the next sentence, does this force an interpretation
on the first sentence that every dog bit the same three people? Or does
ko'a refer to all of the five people that were bitten, even if there's
more than three in all?

Is {ko'a goi no le mu prenu} at all meaningful?

Does {su'eci le mu prenu ku goi ko'a} force existential import
into {su'eci} ("at most three")?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail