From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Tue Oct 26 05:44:51 1993 Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 26 Oct 1993 10:06:35 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 26 Oct 1993 10:06:28 -0400 Message-Id: <199310261406.AA03217@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4548; Tue, 26 Oct 93 10:04:18 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 3625; Tue, 26 Oct 93 09:47:59 EDT Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 09:44:51 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: TECH: nested bridi anaphora X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: <199310231500.AA22933@access.digex.net> from "ucleaar" at Oct 23, 93 03:58:53 pm Status: RO X-Status: mi'e .djan. .i la lojbab. pu cusku di'e > > (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.) la .and. cusku di'e > 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. The main difference would be that the lerfu anaphora are pro-sumti, whereas these proposed anaphora would be pro-bridi. Currently there is no analogue to the lerfu anaphora in the pro-bridi system: you cannot use "me by." because that means "pertaining to B" where B is the last sumti beginning with "b". The same effect can be achieved somewhat painfully with "broda xi by." meaning "broda sub B"; "broda" is the pro-bridi analogue of "ko'a". > 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. So we do. See my paper in casper.cs.yale.edu:/pub/lojban/draft/refgrammar, which explains Lojban anaphora and deixis words, viz. pro-sumti/pro-bridi. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.