Message-Id: <m0sBRRd-0009acC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 16 May 1995 13:17:53 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: Reflexivity and {ri}
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1144
Lines: 30

> (1)     la djan. prami la djan. .i la suzn. go'i
> (2)     la djan. prami ri .i la suzn. go'i
> (3)     la djan. prami vo'a .i la suzn. go'i
>
> It seems to me that (1) means "John loves himself.  Susan loves John"

I think that's undisputable.

> and (3) means "... John loves herself", while (2) is either (1) or
> (3)--probably (3).

I agree that (2) and (3) should mean the same, but I'm not sure that
they mean that Susan loves herself. I have to think more about it.

In any case, I agree with this:

> Actually, I'd recommend changing the behaviour of {ri}.  From the
> history I know, it seems like the current behaviour was necessary when
> it was the only form of pronoun; but now {ko'a}, {ra}, etc. (not to
> mention lerfu) cover pronouns quite sufficiently.  Specifically, the
> antecedent of {ri} should be the sumti whose termination is closest on
> the left.

It is not even clear to me which sumti are supposed to be transparent
to {ri}. Are lerfu pro-sumti, for example?

I would think an easier rule would be the terminated sumti that started
last, because the termination of one that started earlier may be closest.

Jorge