From LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:54:35 2010 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 23 Mar 1993 13:38:27 -0500 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7817; Tue, 23 Mar 93 13:37:12 EST Received: from CUVMB.BITNET by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 4197; Tue, 23 Mar 93 13:38:23 EST Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 18:36:35 GMT Reply-To: C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK Sender: Lojban list From: C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK Subject: Re: TECH: And's question re anaphora To: Erik Rauch X-From-Space-Date: Tue Mar 23 18:36:35 1993 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Message-ID: From: John Cowan > Subject: Re: TECH: And's question re anaphora > la kolin. cusku di'e > > > One of the most common uses [of "go'i"] is > > le go'i = 'the x1 of the previous bridi' which in my opinion only works > > because of the subjectivity of 'le'. > > Why so? Since "go'i", as you rightly state, carries the entire previous > bridi with it, including its sumti, then "lo go'i" would be veridically > "something-which-is-in-the-x1-place-of [insert previous bridi here]". It's a matter of intension versus extension (and maybe quantification. If I say le broda cu brode then lo go'i means lo brode Just because I have asserted that le broda cu brode does not mean that lo brode cu broda still less that it is the particular broda that I meant in the previous sentence. I accept you can get away with this with le, but I don't think it works for lo. Colin