From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Sep 24 21:48:10 1997 Message-Id: <199709250247.VAA14416@locke.ccil.org> Date: Wed Sep 24 21:48:10 1997 Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Sender: Lojban list From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Subject: Re: na`e X-To: lojban To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1209 >> > (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