> > I'm uneasy with that. Having several subjects
> > playing the same role in an assertion looks to me
> > more natural than having to create first a subject
> > which is a group of subjects ...  If I think I am
> > linked to my children by a "father-child"
> > relationship, have I to consider them first as a
> > group? Or if I don't want that, split this
> > assertion is so many assertions that I have
> > children.
> > I would like the rationale of Note 21 to be
> > expanded. On this father-child relationship, for
> > example.

> > I'm uneasy with that. Having several subjects
> > playing the same role in an assertion looks to me
> > more natural than having to create first a subject
> > which is a group of subjects ...  If I think I am
> > linked to my children by a "father-child"
> > relationship, have I to consider them first as a
> > group? Or if I don't want that, split this
> > assertion is so many assertions that I have
> > children.
> > I would like the rationale of Note 21 to be
> > expanded. On this father-child relationship, for
> > example.

> > I'm uneasy with that. Having several subjects
> > playing the same role in an assertion looks to me
> > more natural than having to create first a subject
> > which is a group of subjects ...  If I think I am
> > linked to my children by a "father-child"
> > relationship, have I to consider them first as a
> > group? Or if I don't want that, split this
> > assertion is so many assertions that I have
> > children.
> > I would like the rationale of Note 21 to be
> > expanded. On this father-child relationship, for
> > example.

> > I'm uneasy with that. Having several subjects
> > playing the same role in an assertion looks to me
> > more natural than having to create first a subject
> > which is a group of subjects ...  If I think I am
> > linked to my children by a "father-child"
> > relationship, have I to consider them first as a
> > group? Or if I don't want that, split this
> > assertion is so many assertions that I have
> > children.
> > I would like the rationale of Note 21 to be
> > expanded. On this father-child relationship, for
> > example.

> > I'm uneasy with that. Having several subjects
> > playing the same role in an assertion looks to me
> > more natural than having to create first a subject
> > which is a group of subjects ...  If I think I am
> > linked to my children by a "father-child"
> > relationship, have I to consider them first as a
> > group? Or if I don't want that, split this
> > assertion is so many assertions that I have
> > children.
> > I would like the rationale of Note 21 to be
> > expanded. On this father-child relationship, for
> > example.

> > I'm uneasy with that. Having several subjects
> > playing the same role in an assertion looks to me
> > more natural than having to create first a subject
> > which is a group of subjects ...  If I think I am
> > linked to my children by a "father-child"
> > relationship, have I to consider them first as a
> > group? Or if I don't want that, split this
> > assertion is so many assertions that I have
> > children.
> > I would like the rationale of Note 21 to be
> > expanded. On this father-child relationship, for
> > example.