Re: Re Cowan#2 lo, da poi

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

la djer cusku di'e

> There might be other contexts besides negation where "da poi" as a
> direct substitution for "lo" would yield unexpected results.
> For example:
>
> 1). lo ro tanxe cu ckaji lo xa sefta
>  All the real boxes have the property of six surfaces. (The boxes exist)

No, {ro} here is an inside quantifier. It says: "At least one of all real
boxes has the property of at least one of the six real surfaces there are."

In the property place you need a {le ka}, and for "all boxes", you need
an outside quantifier.

    ro lo tanxe cu ckaji le ka se sefta xa da
    Every box has the property of having as surfaces exactly six things.


> 2). da poi ro tanxe cu ckaji lo xa sefta
>  Something which is all boxes has the propery of six surfaces.

{da poi ro tanxe} is not grammatical.

{lo broda} is {su'o lo ro broda} and is equivalent to {da poi broda},
so you have to replace {lo ro tanxe}={lo tanxe} by {da poi broda}.

{ro lo tanxe} would be equivalent to {ro da poi tanxe}.

"Something which is all boxes" could be {da poi tanxe romei}.


> If my reasoning is correct here, and I almost wish it is not, I hope
> that someone will find a quick fix, and that harmony will prevail in
> lo land.

Your reasoning is not correct because you are mixing outside quantifiers
(true quantifiers) and inside quantifiers (cardinality markers, or
whatever they are called).

Jorge