From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Mon Dec  5 18:53:00 1994
Message-Id: <199412052352.AA02667@nfs2.digex.net>
Date: Mon Dec 5 18:53:00 1994
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: cmavo hit list - lojbab responds
Status: RO

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