From lojbab Tue Dec  6 03:25:04 1994
Received: from access1.digex.net by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA29169
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <lojbab@nfs1.digex.net>); Tue, 6 Dec 1994 03:25:00 -0500
Received: by access1.digex.net id AA07279
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for lojbab); Tue, 6 Dec 1994 03:24:57 -0500
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 03:24:57 -0500
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Message-Id: <199412060824.AA07279@access1.digex.net>
To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject: Re: cmavo hit list - lojbab responds
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: RO

>> are back-referencing from within the sumti itself.  "le tavla be la goran
>> bei ri" refers to some sumti previous toi the whole phrase since the
>> reference is within a not-completed sumti.
>
>I would have said in that case {ri} is still {la goran}, since that
>is the last complete sumti. I do agree that you can't get to {le tavla}
>with ra, because it is not complete.
>
>How about in {le nu tavla la goran ri}? Again the {le nu..} is not complete,
>so {ri} can't be {la goran}? I think this rule is too complicated, why not
>let it be just the last complete one?

I'll let Cowan rule on this.  It has been discussed previously, I am sure,
and I will agree with whatever was said before.  I could accept your
understanding if it is consistent with history.

lojbab