From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:53:30 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Received: (qmail 11447 invoked from network); 25 Sep 1997 01:32:07 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 25 Sep 1997 01:32:07 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <11.0F29EA93@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 3:32:05 +0100 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 06:20:07 -0300 Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Sender: Lojban list From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Subject: Re: na`e X-To: lojban To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1178 Lines: 27 Message-ID: >> > (1) su'o bu'a poi na vreta zo'u le mlatu cu bu'a le stizu >> > For some which is not "vreta", the cat the chair. >> > >> > I think {su'o bu'a poi na vreta} really means something else, but >> > that's a different story which I'm not sure we want to get into. >> >> For "poi" read "cei", which makes everything fine. > >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. Quantifiable pro-bridi are an abomination on the language. Fortunately they aren't needed. Here's a way of doing it with ordinary quantification, even if it does take a few more words: su'o da su'o de poi na zo vreta zo'u da de bridi le mlatu ku ce'o le stizu ije da jetnu There is some x, and there is some y which is not "lies on", such that: x is a predication with selbri y and arguments (the cat, the chair), and x is true. co'o mi'e xorxes