A pair of how-do-i-say-it's

[Ivan A Derzhanski <cbmvax!uunet!cogsci.ed.ac.uk!iad>]

>  Date:     Tue, 17 Mar 1992 14:45:01 -0500
>  From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@EDU.COLUMBIA.CTR>
>
>  <...> the {bu'a} series is like
>  the {da/de/di} series (while {brodX} is like {ko'a/fo'a}).  So far so good.
>  Here's an example of a sentence I was plying with:
>
>  George Bush is to the United States what John Major is to Great Britain.
>
>  <...>  You can use assorted
>  circumlocutions to get this, but I think you ought to be able to use
>  {bu'a}, since this is really what it's for.  Just like {da} asserts "There
>  is some sumti/object/concept/whatever that fills this place", {bu'a} should
>  assert "There is some selbri/relationship that relates these sumti".

Suppose we really say something like "GB {bu'a} US & JM {bu'a} UK"
with whatever connective might be applicable between the two sentences.

And suppose {bu'a} really means that there is some selbri which
expresses a relation that holds for the given arguments.

So what we get is  `exists R [R (g, a) and R (j, b)]'.

Now what did we say by stating this?  Not much, it seems to me, for it
is evident that there are a lot of possible values for R which make
the sentence true.  Say,

   `c := lambda x lambda y [is_a_citizen_of (x, y)]',
   `d := lambda x lambda y [has_spent_at_least_one_week_in (x, y)]',

and so on.  In fact, it should be possible to say `ID {bu'a} UK & GB
{bu'a} US', because the sentence is true for {bu'a} = `d' (`x has
spent at least one week in y').  Yet if someone says in English "Ivan
is to the UK what George Bush is to the US", I'd give him a very
strange look.

What is going on?  Since {da} really can mean any object/concept,
{bu'a} should be able to mean any relation, but it obviously doesn't.
Is this a problem similar to the one with the meaning of {na'e}?

Ivan