From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:53:36 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Received: (qmail 11369 invoked from network); 25 Sep 1997 01:06:40 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 25 Sep 1997 01:06:40 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <15.7BD07701@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 3:06:29 +0100 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 11:03:41 +1000 Reply-To: HACKER G N Sender: Lojban list From: HACKER G N Subject: Re: na`e To: John Cowan Cc: Lojban List In-Reply-To: <0EH000EL2YVEKQ@newcastle.edu.au> Content-Length: 1289 Lines: 31 Message-ID: On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, John Cowan wrote: > > "cei" doubles up the functions of "goi" and "poi". When applied > to an assignable pro-bridi, it assigns it; when applied to an > existential pro-bridi, it restricts it. This isn't explicitly > stated in the book because I was leery of saying too much about > second-order quantification when my understanding of it is > quite shaky. > > But anyway, relative clauses can only be applied to sumti, and > while "su'o bu'a" is technically a sumti, in the prenex > (by special exception) it is functioning as a quantifier + > pro-bridi. So the true grouping is > > su'o (bu'a cei (na vreta)) zo'u ... > ` For-some (relationships which are (not reclining)) ... > > rather than > > (su'o bu'a) (poi na vreta) zo'u ... > Speaking-of-(some-things which-satisfy "bu'a") > (which do not recline) Oh! That's a real twist on what's written in the grammar, I think. I would perhaps have been a bit more comfortable with "su'o nu bu'a", "su'o su'u bu'a" or some other such abstraction to express a predicate relation in a prenex, because it seems more consistent with the grammar elsewhere, but I'm not overly fussed about it, because I don't consider myself likely to use these kinds of constructions. Geoff