From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Sep 24 14:32:53 1997 Message-Id: <199709241932.OAA27203@locke.ccil.org> Date: Wed Sep 24 14:32:53 1997 Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Organization: Lojban Peripheral Subject: Re: na`e X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1306 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