Re: abstractors

[JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

And:
>>         i ty po'o cu morji le ka ce'u speni dy
>>         Only Charles remembers being married to Di.
>
>I don't see how the second one means that. How do we know
>that ce`u is bound by "ty"? Indeed, I wouldn't know what
>"morji le ka" meant at all.

Well, {ce'u} would have to be bound either by {le morji} or by
{le te morji}, that would be part of the meaning of morji, as
with any gismu that accepts a {ka} in one of its slots. I was
going to say that binding to {le morji} was the more useful, as
in the example, but we can have it the other way around just
as well: Only Charles is remembered as being married to Di,
which would require binding to {le te morji}, so I won't argue
for it.

>>  >  ro da poi ke`a morji lo nu da speni la dianas cu du le truraibe'a
 >>  >
>> >That, I think, gets the meaning right, though it would be nice to
>> >find a way of doing it without the "du".
>>
>> I agree that those work, changing {nu} to {du'u}.
>
>And must we use the "du"?

I can't think of another way. Perhaps something like:

        ro da cu trurai la gugdrkimre gi'o morji le du'u da speni dy
        For every x, it is the prince of Wales iff it remembers marrying Di.

>How else can one say "is an x such that x remembers that x did..."?

This is a similar issue to the question of what does
{le gerku cu batci ri} mean. Is it "each of the dogs bites itself",
or "each of the dogs bites each of the dogs"? And what about
{le gerku cu batci vo'a} and {le gerku cu batci gy}?

 co'o mi'e xorxes.