Re: na`e

[John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>]

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