WikiDiscuss

I'm not sure that I understand the quantifiers here in the way you do, which seems to range them over plural packets rather than just over several things. {pa da broda} says that one thing brodas, not that one plurality of unspecified size does. I don't think that the whole other {ro} is accompanied by a whole other PA. The plurality of the reference comes out mainly in the case of {su'o da} where a plurality of any size may answer the call. Your apporach (as I understand it) is singularist, making a plurality somehow a single thing, in the example a triad of some sort.
I agree that the {naku su'o naku} universal is "any," since "any" (and "all") are not importing and neither is nsn. But it is not the normal "all" ("every" importing) of McKay's system. We have the distinction (not the only one perhaps but an identifying one) in the old {ma'u ro} (importing) and {ni'u ro} (not importing). If we were doing McKay, we would take {ma'u ro} as the norm and so unmarked and then mark {ni'u ro} when it is needed.

Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:

pc:
> Jorge Llambías wrote:
>> Suppose exactly three things broda. Then the right hand side
>> is true (some things are broda and they are all the brodas) but
>> is the right hand side true?
>>
>> pa da broda ijo ge su'o de broda gi ro di poi broda cu du de
>> Exactly one thing1 is a broda iff some thing2 is a broda and
>> every thing3 that is a broda is that thing2.
>
> Sorry, I was taking quantifiers as always particularizing (the normal {ro}
> etc, rather than the occasionally useful which goes by subpluralities. With
> that then, I am not sure what happens, but presumably both sides are false
> (since some of the subpluralities are not identical with the overall one and
> there are more than one plurality which brodas).

With the {ro} defined as the dual of {su'o}, (which works best as
English "any") then it might work:

Exactly one thing brodas iff some thing brodas and any bordas are
that thing.

But with {ro} as the normal plural "all", the one McKay represents with
a capital lambda, it does not work. The right hand side just says that
there are brodas: Some X brodas and all brodas are that X, which is
always true if there are brodas.

So, if for no other reason, we can't take {da} as a plural variable
at least until we decide which one of the two "all"s {ro} is.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail