From pycyn@aol.com Sun Aug 12 17:10:48 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 13 Aug 2001 00:10:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 12247 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2001 00:10:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Aug 2001 00:10:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m08.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.163) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Aug 2001 00:10:47 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.9.) id r.e3.18fd581a (17384) for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 20:10:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 20:10:42 EDT Subject: Second session on Record: anaphora To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_e3.18fd581a.28a87502_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 9463 --part1_e3.18fd581a.28a87502_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit {vo'a, -e,-i,-o,-u} refer to the sumti occuppying the corresponding {fV} places in the uppermost of nested bridi, i.e., the bridi in which the others are nested. This clarifies an apparent conflict between the Book and the cmavo list. {no'a [xiPA]} This repeats the bridi PA levels up from the place where it occurs. The default {no'a} = {no'axipa} the bridi in which the occurrence is immediately nested. The topmost bridi in the nesting chain (the one to whose sumti {vo'V} refer) is always reachable as {no'axiro}. For counting purposes, a new level begins as soon as a subordinate bridi is guaranteed: at NU or NOI [are there others? - LE had best not count or this whole thing gets to be too complicated]. The ordering of the levels (from the bottom up rather than top down) and of the default case (lowest rather than highest) were based on practical considerations: what would most likely be used and which could be calculated most easily. The rule about when a new level starts is controversial, since it allows for paradoxes: reference to incomplete bridi, to sumti that have not yet appeared, and even self-referencing. However, given that this system defines reference by level, any other version is totally arbitrary, and every version allows these same problems at some point (indeed, in intrasentence anaphora of this sort, every reference to the present or higher bridi must be to an incomplete object, since the bridi of which the present reference is a part, cannot be complete until after this reference is done). {nei} repeats the bridi in which it occurs. This leads to more immediate paradox, since {nei} standing alone is presumably a complete bridi, namely itself -- desperately hard to interpret. However, things like {le nei} are needed to repeat sumti in that bridi for reflexives and the like when the bridi involved is not the topmost one, for which {vo'V} are used. [I can't help wondering if, were we not now frozen in, this whole system could have been rendered somewhat less messy. For example, to get sumti from various levels, perhaps {vo'V[xiPA]} could have been used, avoiding the messy bridi anaphora altogether ({vo'Vxiro} = {vo'V}). 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). ] --part1_e3.18fd581a.28a87502_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit {vo'a, -e,-i,-o,-u} refer to the sumti occuppying the corresponding {fV}
places in the uppermost of nested bridi, i.e., the bridi in which the others
are nested. This clarifies an apparent conflict between the Book and the
cmavo list.

{no'a [xiPA]} This repeats the bridi PA levels up from the place where it
occurs. The default {no'a} = {no'axipa} the bridi in which the occurrence is
immediately nested. The topmost bridi in the nesting chain (the one to whose
sumti {vo'V} refer) is always reachable as {no'axiro}. For counting
purposes, a new level begins as soon as a subordinate bridi is guaranteed: at
NU or NOI [are there others? - LE had best not count or this whole thing gets
to be too complicated].
      The ordering of the levels (from the bottom up rather than top down)
and of the default case (lowest rather than highest) were based on practical
considerations: what would most likely be used and which could be calculated
most easily.
      The rule about when a new level starts is controversial, since it
allows for paradoxes: reference to incomplete bridi, to sumti that have not
yet appeared, and even self-referencing. However, given that this system
defines reference by level, any other version is totally arbitrary, and every
version allows these same problems at some point (indeed, in intrasentence
anaphora of this sort, every reference to the present or higher bridi must be
to an incomplete object, since the bridi of which the present reference is a
part, cannot be complete until after this reference is done).

{nei} repeats the bridi in which it occurs.
      This leads to more immediate paradox, since {nei} standing alone is
presumably a complete bridi, namely itself -- desperately hard to interpret.
However, things like {le nei} are needed to repeat sumti in that bridi for
reflexives and the like when the bridi involved is not the topmost one, for
which {vo'V} are used.

[I can't help wondering if, were we not now frozen in, this whole system
could have been rendered somewhat less messy. For example, to get sumti from
various levels, perhaps {vo'V[xiPA]} could have been used, avoiding the messy
bridi anaphora altogether ({vo'Vxiro} = {vo'V}). 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). ] --part1_e3.18fd581a.28a87502_boundary--