WikiDiscuss

pc:
> B: There is very little the matter with {mi nitcu leva tanxe} aside from its
> taking the basket as an event. It does not create generalization problems
> because it has guaranteed — by explicit deixis — that the object referred
> to exists in this world. This clearly a very special case and is handled as
> such. I suspect that at a deep grammatical level it is handled — unlike
> most cases — by insertion from an external sumti.

You had said that the new {lo} is "inadequate because it does not "solve"
the "problem" for any type of sumti other than one introduced by {lo},
but the same problem occurs with every other type of compound sumti
(LO + (bridi)) or names." What would be an example where {nitcu le} or
{nitcu la} are problematic, then?

> D: Rabbit A is eating grass, Rabbit B is not, so Mr. Rabbit both is and is
> not eating grass. This is a flat contradiction and therefore, since
> contradictory objects cannot exist, Mr. Rabbit — as proposed — does not
> exist. And so, assuming that we have not decided to use the outer domain,
> Mr. Rabbit is not the referent of any {lo ractu} expression — except
> perhaps one in an intentional context.

Mr Rabbit is eating grass (here), but he is not eating grass (over there).
That's not contradictory. John talked to Mary (yesterday), but he did not
talk to Mary (the day before). That's the same type of non-contradiction.
That John did and did not talk to Mary does not mean he cannot exist. All
it means is that to understand what a sentence means you need context.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/