From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Thu Aug 16 16:27:15 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 16 Aug 2001 23:27:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 5620 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2001 23:27:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 16 Aug 2001 23:27:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47) by mta3 with SMTP; 16 Aug 2001 23:27:10 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.40]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010816232708.TSMK710.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 00:27:08 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Second session on Record: anaphora Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 00:26:13 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 9705 pc: > cowan@ccil.org writes: > > > > But if bridi anaphora is > > > needed, perhaps it would be better to recognize that LE too starts a > > > subordinate bridi and then do without {nei}, thus avoiding one round of > > > paradoxes and yet covering all the practical cases (I think, but have > not > > > pushed the process too far). ] [...] > The idea behind making {le} also subordinate a bridi then is that any use of > a bridi anaphora will be subordinated at least one level and thus be {no'a} > of some degree and there will be no place for {nei} and its paradoxes. The > second place of the present bridi would be {le se no'a}, the {le} requiring > the one-up shift. I don't see how this avoids self-referential problems, since the antecedent of no'a contains no'a. We are agreed that as selbri of grammatical bridi (i.e. when not in sumti tail), nei and no'a are useless. If we are nonetheless worried about the philosophical problems of no'a and nei then my syntactic definition of them fixes the philosophical problems. --And.