In a message dated 10/16/2002 2:35:07 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hidden.email writes:
<<
>(As obscure as "hangs from a prenex" is (is bound by something outside?,
>is
>a transcendental quantifier?, ...?), I suspect you are mistaking the logic
>of the item with the particular use it is put to -- all those {{frica}
>cases
>confuse the issues.)
I don't think I am. Consider these two properties:
(1) le ka ce'u goi ko'a zo'u la djan cu mutce le ka ce'u goi ko'e zo'u ko'e
prami ko'a
The property of being much loved by John.
(2) le ka ce'u goi ko'a zo'u la djan cu mutce le ka ce'u goi ko'e zo'u ko'a
prami ko'e
The property of much loving John.
The assignment in the second prenex is not actually necessary, we could just
as
well say:
(1a) le ka ce'u goi ko'a zo'u la djan cu mutce le ka ce'u prami ko'a
(2a) le ka ce'u goi ko'a zo'u la djan cu mutce le ka ko'a prami ce'u
They are both one-place properties, even though they involve another
property in their specification. And the ce'u-place can only be indicated
in the outer prenex. We can't put for example {ce'u goi ko'a} in the
inner prenex, nor bring the second ce'u up to the main prenex.
So each {ce'u} is strictly restricted to some prenex.
Well, I guessed wrong about what you meant (I had been looking at too many examples which talked about "bound" {ce'u} as though that meant something and thought you might still be involved in those). I have already agreed that the use of a {ce'u} twice needs something like a {goi} assignment -- and in this case, {cy} will not work generally.
|