Wiki page How to use xorlo changed
wrote:
> --- John E Clifford wrote:
> > So, what I meant was
> > "You say here that the quantifier in {mu lo
> > bakni}has {lo bakni} as its range but other
> > places it appears that {mu lo bakni} = {mu
> bakni}
> > has the whole of existing cows as its range.
> > Which is correct?"
>
> {mu lo bakni} = {mu bakni} has {lo bakni} as
> its range,
> i.e. the whole of cows in the model.
>
> "Existing cows", as in the cows that exist (or
> ever existed
> or ever will exist?) in the real world is one
> particular model
> that does not always apply. It will apply in
> some contexts.
"in the model" still puzzles me. All the cows
that .... what? I am thinking about?, are near
enough to be of interest? and so on. I would
have thought (because that is the way it has
been) that {lo bakni} was always a selection from
available cows, that is that the range on a
quantifier might well be greater than {lo bakni}
(unless it was lo ro bakni), though it would
generally be less than all the cows that are,
were or ever will be (usually just all that
there are now or even, as noted, all that are
currently available, not all of which need be in
lo bakni).
On a not unrelated issue. Two occurrences of {mu
bakni} can indicate two different bunches of
cows; can two occurrences of {lo bakni} (in the
same context, etc.) indicate two different
bunches of cows or must they be the same?
Gneralizinf various other things it sems that a
good case could be made either way.