Return-Path: <@SEGATE.SUNET.SE:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi  with smtp
	(Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0sBGeM-0009acC; Tue, 16 May 95 10:02 EET DST
Message-Id: <m0sBGeM-0009acC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id 404C57CD ; Tue, 16 May 1995 9:02:35 +0100
Date:         Tue, 16 May 1995 03:01:48 -0400
Reply-To:     "Dylan P. Thurston" <dpt@MATH.HARVARD.EDU>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         "Dylan P. Thurston" <dpt@MATH.HARVARD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Reflexivity and {ri}
X-To:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@access.digex.net>
X-cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  <199505160522.AA19805@access1.digex.net>
Content-Length: 938
Lines: 32

Here's a mildly related question.  What does

(1)     la djan. prami la djan. .i la suzn. go'i

mean?  What does

(2)     la djan. prami ri .i la suzn. go'i

mean?  And what does

(3)     la djan. prami vo'a .i la suzn. go'i

mean?

It seems to me that (1) means "John loves himself.  Susan loves John"
and (3) means "... John loves herself", while (2) is either (1) or
(3)--probably (3).  Be warned that textual expansion won't work:
consider

(4)     la djan. prami ri .i do go'i

This should have the same behaviour as (2), but {ri} cannot refer back
to {do}.

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.

mu'o mi'e. dilyn.