Re: na`e

[HACKER G N <c9709244@drv.cbc.com>]

On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, John Cowan wrote:
>  
> "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)

Oh! That's a real twist on what's written in the grammar, I think. I would
perhaps have been a bit more comfortable with "su'o nu bu'a", "su'o su'u
bu'a" or some other such abstraction to express a
predicate relation in a prenex, because it seems more consistent with the
grammar elsewhere, but I'm not overly fussed about it, because I don't
consider myself likely to use these kinds of constructions. 

Geoff