| In a message dated 7/26/2001 12:22:42 PM Central Daylight Time,
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: >< Well, no. My answer was for the particular case where the first quantifier was {ro} and so took in all the prenu. With other initial quantifiers, it works out that the retriction attached to the second use is that they all are among those selected by the first quantifier, i.e. roughly {su'o da poi prenu su'o de po'u da zo'u} (I'm not sure this will exactly work until I run the expansion, which I am too lazy to do just now). That is, once {da} is set up as a term, quantifiers work on it as they do on other terms {lo broda} for example. I am unsure what that would mean for the {goi} case; probably gobbledygook unless la alphas was the same entity as la betas. What does {ko'a goi la alfas ko'a goi la betas} mean: {da} should be the same. <On a related issue, what happens here: {su'o da goi xy ... da'o ... xy}. Does da'o clear the xy assignment? Presumably it does, as it clears all pro-sumti, doesn't it? But da'o is not necessary to use da again, all that is necessary is a new quantifier.> Yes {da'o} clears the xy assignment and the subsequent {da} is a new quantifier, not now restricted to xy. But without the {da'o} (or other devices for clearing assignments), even {ro da} would be restricted to xy. I think. This is expansion of Book 16:14 (pp 410-1) |