Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0rEvFW-00007GC; Tue, 6 Dec 94 10:27 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8569; Tue, 06 Dec 94 10:28:04 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8565; Tue, 6 Dec 1994 10:28:03 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9555; Tue, 6 Dec 1994 09:24:44 +0100 Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 03:24:57 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: cmavo hit list - lojbab responds X-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 773 Lines: 17 >> 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