WikiDiscuss

pc:
> Note that the quantification per se is
> just over groups and is always (in nonnegative
> contexts) particular: "there is a group such
> that".

What happens with {su'eci}? Is that "at most three,
possibly none" or "at most three and at least one"?

> Having found the group we can then
> enumerate it.

But that's not how you have defined it. You have the
enumeration as part of what must be satisfied by the group.
For {Q lo broda cu brode} you have:

Ix: x group & xF Iz: z group & xCz z d-G & z is Q of x

There is some group of brodas x, such that there is some
subgroup z among them, such that z are brode and Q in
number.

Your description above ("having found the group we can
then enumerate it") would correspond more to something like

Ix: x group & xF Iz: z group & xCz z d-G &
"the brodes among the brodas are Q in number".

I didn't formalize the second part because it would take me
several lines, but in any case it is outside the scope of
the Ix quantifier.

In other words, is {Q lo broda cu brode}

(1) "Among the brodas, there is at least one group that
is Q in number and brodes"

or

(2) "There's a group among the brodas that brodes.
They, the brodas that brode, are Q in number"

Your definition corresponds to (1), but your talk points to (2).

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com