From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Wed May 24 14:48:13 1995
Date:         Wed, 24 May 1995 11:15:25 -0400
From: "Dylan P. Thurston" <dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Reflexivity and {ri}
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Message-ID: <NYvbMtATaY.A.hmE.pt0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

mi cusku di'e
 > > Here's a mildly related question.  What does
 > >
 > > (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
 > > (4)     la djan. prami ri .i do go'i

la goran cusku di'e
 > ...
 > The point is, go'i copies the MEANING of the places, not the words that
 > fill them. So, in all cases, x2 stays John. To get the words reevaluated,
 > stick a ra'o in (pro-sumti update), i.e. la suzn. go'i ra'o
 > That gives:
 >
 > 1) John loves John, Susan loves John
 > 2) John loves John, Susan loves Susan
 > 3) John loves John, Susan loves Susan
 > 4) John loves John, Susan loves John
                       (or you)

Thanks, that's very helpful.  I must say, though, I find (4) very
unnatural.  If {ri} had the behaviour I suggested, problems like (4)
would never occur:  the referent would almost always serve the same role
in the sentence.

 > > mu'o mi'e. dilyn.
 >
 > co'o mi'e. goran.

mu'o mi'e. dilyn.