I argue here that r. Van straaten's four modifications of f. Sommers' 'rule for enforcing ambiguity' are based upon a misunderstanding of the basis of the rule and a failure to see the spanning/predicability distinction. The effect is that none of van straaten's several counterexamples are telling against the rule. In place of van straaten's modifications I offer the following simple but important changes in the rule: the restriction of things to individuals and the reading of 'makes (...) sense to predicate' and similar phrases in terms of the spanning relation. (shrink)

Se presenta un índice de los fragmentos atribuidos a Panecio y su correspondencia con los distintos editores: Fowler (1885), Straaten (1952), Alesse (1997) y Vimercati (2004).