From DPT@HUMA1.BITNET  Sat Mar  6 22:45:18 2010
Date:         Wed, 17 May 1995 00:55:11 -0400
From: DPT@HUMA1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Reflexivity and {ri}
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
X-From-Space-Date: Wed May 17 04:20:39 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
Message-ID: <c5rpSJg5VXP.A.e6E.-t0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

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.)

--Dylan