Message-Id: <m0sBbA9-0009acC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Wed, 17 May 1995 00:55:11 -0400
Reply-To:     DPT@HUMA1.BITNET
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         DPT@HUMA1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Reflexivity and {ri}
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  <01HQKO9EVUSYBHEE8I@NETOP6.HARVARD.EDU>
Content-Length: 1269
Lines: 32

jorge@phyast.pitt.edu writes:
 > ...
 > 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.

My intention was exactly to rule out this case.  I'd like
        da prami ri
to mean "da loves (him/her/it)self", even if {da} is replaced by an
arbitrary sumti, e.g.,
        le mi tamne prami ri
which, under your suggestion, would mean "My cousin loves me."

Then textual substitution to find the meaning of {go'i} would be
closer to correct, though there are still problems: what happens to
the personal pronouns {mi joi do}?  Do those get switched when the
speaker changes?  (This is a problem in English.)

 > Jorge

--Dylan