From jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:44:51 2010 Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 13:17:53 EDT From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: Reflexivity and {ri} To: Bob LeChevalier X-From-Space-Date: Tue May 16 18:33:09 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Message-ID: > (1) la djan. prami la djan. .i la suzn. go'i > (2) la djan. prami ri .i la suzn. go'i > (3) la djan. prami vo'a .i la suzn. go'i > > It seems to me that (1) means "John loves himself. Susan loves John" I think that's undisputable. > and (3) means "... John loves herself", while (2) is either (1) or > (3)--probably (3). I agree that (2) and (3) should mean the same, but I'm not sure that they mean that Susan loves herself. I have to think more about it. 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. Jorge