From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Oct 23 16:58:53 1993 Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Sat, 23 Oct 1993 11:00:39 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Sat, 23 Oct 1993 11:00:35 -0400 Message-Id: <199310231500.AA02840@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5265; Sat, 23 Oct 93 10:58:33 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 3868; Sat, 23 Oct 93 11:01:23 EDT Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1993 15:58:53 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: TECH: nested bridi anaphora X-To: lojban@cuvma.BITNET To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: (Your message of Sat, 23 Oct 93 09:56:08 D.) Status: RO X-Status: > (A series of nonsense gismu starting with each consonant sounds > interesting, too, as an analogue to the lerfu anaphora - but I don't see > proposing it unless we find usage demanding it.) Would these simply work like lerfu anaphora but have more signal redundancy, or are there other advantages, in that the lerfu anaphora now become infinite in number. E.g. if the nonsense anaphor always corefers with the last word that starts with the same letter and hasn't already been assigned referred to with a different nonsense anaphor, and if a convention was adopted for assigning referents a nonsense anaphor, then you have easy & possibly quite mnemonic ways of referring to anything in the previous discourse. What exactly did you have in mind? Anaphora is awkward in any language, so there is a good argument for providing as many varieties as possible & letting natural selection choose the best. --- And KO JBOBANPEHO