WikiDiscuss

pc:
> > I don't use quantifiers for unquantified terms.
>
> But what terms are quantified is a matter of
> interpretation.

If the term has a PA in front, it is quantified.
If the term does not have a PA in front it is not.
That's all the interpretation that's required, the
way I see it.

> {lo rozgu
> cu xunre} without context is particular, not
> general — almost exactly what your second
> definition has it be.

I tend to take any out of the blue sentence as general.
I'm not sure why you say it has to be otherwise.

> > The obvious ones in some context might be roses
> > in general.
>
> But those aren't ones in any context. Roses in
> general are just (like typical roses) about the
> general situation with particular roses in each.

That's your take on things, we are obviously not going
to agree about that.

> > Maybe your ontology is too restrictive.
>
> Maybe. How would you expand it — keeping with
> things , not with mere forms of words.

Roses are things. We've been here, I suspect we won't be getting
anywhere this time either.

> > > How would you verify {lo rozgu cu xunre}?
> > In what context?
>
> I assume that you mean it here as a general claim
> about roses. You apparently mean something by it
> other than that there are red roses (which is
> easy to verify), but it is not clear what more.

"Roses are red" in English does not just mean that
there are red roses.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

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