methods of resolving mismatches between place structures and number of overt sumti
> Jorge LlambÃas scripsit:
>
> > {lo'i broda be zi'o} is a superset, not a
> subset, of {lo'i broda}.
>
> Indeed. You mistook my strawman for a real
> argument: zi'o cannot be
> defined as a mere projection.
>
> > For example,
> > {lo se cmima be zi'o}, a "bemembered thing"
> but without the place for the
> > members, can be things (one thing actually)
> without any members,
> > whereas {lo se cmima} can't. {broda} could be
> a projection of {broda be zi'o},
> > not the other way around.
>
> But it's only in specialized cases that we
> definitely know what things are
> broda be zi'o but not broda be da, like this
> one. Most of the time, it's
> a huge semantic defining effort that hasn't
> even been begun.
>
But one that we are not generally called to
solve, even for the case at hand. If we do not
want to accept that the present case is true,
that the ta mentioned in {ta broda zi'o} really
is a broda zi'o, then we can get into a
discussion with the claimant on that issue, if it
matters enough. And he either comes up with a
(totally uninteresting) something that goes in
the slot or he makes a case that ta at least is
enough like things that broda da to admit into
the sorta-broda class even though they broda no
da. Or you come up with a killer difference (not
just about what goes into the slot). Or you end
up just disagreeing on the question.