WikiDiscuss

pc:
> 19: OK. But you need to make it clear that you are allowing for
> quantification over non-existents.

That depends on the context, doesn't it? Surely sometimes you
quantify over non-existents when speaking in English and other
times you don't. If context does not make it clear that you
are restricting it to existents, you can always say
{ro da poi zasti zi'e poi ...}, {su'o da poi zasti zi'e poi ...}.

> That is a perfectly good way to go and,
> once started, seems to require that you go all the way. We probably then
> need a different set of quantifiers for the existents, since it is often
> important to know that something really exists.

When it is not obvious what you mean, you can explicitly restrict
with {poi zasti}. In a similar way, sometimes we use {no da} when
we mean {no da poi prenu}, and so on. If you want to buy more
precision you have to pay with more verbosity.

> I hope, by the way, that the shift to quantifying over the outer domain is
> made for carefully considered reason, not just to save a few embarassing
> cases.

Shift?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

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