From - Wed Sep 24 10:56:10 1997 Message-ID: <34292A05.2B93@locke.ccil.org> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 10:56:10 -0400 From: John Cowan Organization: Lojban Peripheral X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lojban List Subject: Re: na`e References: <199709240348.WAA27938@locke.ccil.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1229 HACKER G N wrote: > But if "bu'a" means "some selbri 1", then how can it be assigned to a > specific selbri without "poi"? I thought "cei" was for assignable > pro-bridi - which "bu'a" isn't - and "poi" was for relative clauses - > which are one of the few ways you can restrict the scope of a logically > quantifiable existential pro-bridi. "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) -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban