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

["Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!CTR.COLUMBIA.EDU!shoulson>]

Chris Handley, in rejecting the proposed use of {ro bu'a zo'u} with {.ijo}:

>No, I do not think so. It is not quantified over all relationships but
>rather that there is one _specific_ (but unspecified) relationship which
>links GB to USA in sort of the same way as JM is linked to UK (GB?).

So then by John's magic theory that specified {bu'a} in prenices specifies
over the predicate, not the x1, we get:

le bu'a zo'u la buc. bu'a le merko gugde .ije(/whatever) la meidjr. bu'a
le brito gugde

for a particular relationship P: Bush P's US and Major P's UK

'Course, this begs the question of *which* P, bringing us right back where
we started.  Maybe the use of {le'e} or {lo'e} will help to indicate the
one we want, but it's still beating around the bush (no pun intended).

~mark