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 m0rEl6l-00007GC; Mon, 5 Dec 94 23:38 EET
Message-Id: <m0rEl6l-00007GC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0125; Mon, 05 Dec 94 23:38:19 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0120; Mon, 5 Dec 1994 23:38:19 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE
 (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2755; Mon, 5 Dec 1994 22:34:41 +0100
Date:         Mon, 5 Dec 1994 16:27:06 EST
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: cmavo hit list - lojbab responds
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 663
Lines: 16

la lojbab cusku di'e

> The only place where you have to be careful with this rule is when you
> 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?

Jorge