WikiDiscuss

An example of an ambiguous sentence with the proposed {lo}
would help clarify matters. From what you say I don't see
how the proposed {lo} is ambiguous.

pc:
> O:But MR.Rabbit is said to be the same over spatially discrete parts, not
> merely temporal slices and that is markedly different from John: we talk --
> when it is necessary to avoid confusion or contradiction — about the parts
> of John, not merely John, but Mr.Rabbit talk is always about Mr. Rabbit
> simpliciter, not about his parts or manifestations or whatever.

Quantification is over the instances. We can talk about them
when we need or want to.

> Q: But {lo ractu} does not behave like a constant term — or at least you
> keep refusing to admit ordinary inferences involving constants with respect
> to it: generalization, negation transparency, apparently subject raising over
> compounds, and the like do none of them apply to {lo}, but all do to {la},
> say.

Generalization to the proper general case does apply to {lo}. It
does not generalize to instances, but then it is not an instance.
Negation transparency does apply to {lo}.
I don't quite understand the third point, but if it applies
to {la} it probably does apply to {lo} as well.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

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