Re: Cowan's summary #2: "lo" vs. "da poi"

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

> However, I would like to propose instituting one difference between "lo"
> and "da poi":  that "lo" be given an implicit outside quantifier which
> mutates across a negation boundary.

I don't like this at all. {su'o <sumti>} should behave the same across
a negation boundary for any <sumti>, be it {lo broda}, {le broda} or {da},
or any other. The quantifier changes to {ro} when going through {na}.

> 6)      lo nanmu na klama le zarci
>         Some men don't go to the store.
>
> mean different things:  Example 6 is true as long as at least some men don't
> go to the store (on the given occasion), whereas Example 7 require that
> no men go.  In effect, "lo broda" transforms to a "da poi broda" with
> widest scope, even wider than sentential negation.

What you want for 6) is {lo nanmu naku klama le zarci}. I don't see the
need for complicated exceptions to the scope of quantifiers. With your
proposal, how would the scope of {lo broda} behave in the presence of
a {naku}?

> Providing this feature is not strictly necessary, but may make the use of
> negation somewhat simpler,

I don't think so. I can try to think of confusing examples if you want.

> because it means that both "lo" and "le" commute
> with negation, i.e. are in effect singular terms.

{le} doesn't in general commute with negation, only in the case where
the inner quantifier is {pa}. This is the most common case though, so
it is fair to say that it commutes. {lei} always commutes (I assume
that its quantifier is {piro} rather than {pisu'o}, more on this in
another post).

Also, {le} and {lo} don't commute with each other. I'm not sure how your
proposal would handle that.

> Comment on this proposal?

I'm strongly against. It is complicated and I think would cause more
trouble than anything else.

Jorge