In that example you are trying to interpret a similar formula according to the regular synchronic syntax.***
There may be a flaw in that process. But I'm not competent enough in the language to say if you are right or not.
This is more a theoretical objection.
I noticed "KN with its **implied** “to be” ": so the syntax is indeed odd!?
Arnaud
What would be a regular sentence with the same meaning and the same words?***
A.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.