From LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:55:01 2010 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 23 Mar 1993 11:42:03 -0500 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7060; Tue, 23 Mar 93 11:40:39 EST Received: from CUVMB.BITNET by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 3121; Tue, 23 Mar 93 11:41:13 EST Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 10:15:42 -0500 Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Subject: Re: TECH: And's question re anaphora X-To: Lojban List To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: <9303191633.AA11255@relay2.UU.NET> from "C.J.Fine@bradford.ac.uk" at Mar 19, 93 03:58:12 pm X-From-Space-Date: Tue Mar 23 05:15:42 1993 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Message-ID: 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]". -- John Cowan cowan@snark.thyrsus.com ...!uunet!lock60!snark!cowan e'osai ko sarji la lojban.