From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Tue May 16 05:10:54 1995
Date:         Tue, 16 May 1995 03:01:48 -0400
From: "Dylan P. Thurston" <dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Reflexivity and {ri}
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Message-ID: <AjeLrCnIyo.A.Z5E.8t0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

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.