From dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU  Sat Mar  6 22:44:58 2010
Date:         Wed, 24 May 1995 11:07:15 -0400
From: "Dylan P. Thurston" <dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU>
Subject:      Dylan on ri - late response
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
X-From-Space-Date: Wed May 24 14:14:19 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
Message-ID: <i0aRQC1TgwL.A.doE.qt0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

mi cusku di'e
 > >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.

la lojbab. cusku di'e
 > ...
 > But wait - what means termination closest?  Do you count elided
 > terminators or not?

Yes.  Isn't this the current behaviour (modulo KOhAs)?  "Last complete
sumti" implies that to me.  If not, someone should clarify.

What does
        le la alis. tamne cu prami ri
mean?

 > lojbab

mu'o mi'e. dilyn.