Return-Path: <jimc@math.ucla.edu>
	(Sendmail 5.61/1.07) id AA10351; Tue, 6 Apr 93 08:16:36 -0700
Message-Id: <9304061516.AA10351@julia.math.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Lojban->Prolog: conjunctions 
             <9304061425.AA08997@julia.math.ucla.edu> 
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 93 08:16:35 -0700
From: jimc@math.ucla.edu
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011

> mi .e do cu prami ro lo nanmu gi'e xebni ro lo ninmu
> 
> ****
> 
> inmu(_FISRZ, _FIUPM, _FIUPN, _FIUPO, _FIUPP), [], xebni(koha, _FISRZ, _FISSA,

Very nice, using ko'a to pipe through the pre-argument of the
previous bridi tail.  I agree with this use of ko'a as a general anaphor
for the implied argument of a complex construction rather than being
limited to subordinate clauses.  Is it authoritative that there is 
exactly one pre-argument (not zero, not more) of every bridi tail?

		-- jimc