From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Thu Aug 16 16:27:07 2001
Return-Path: <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 16 Aug 2001 23:27:07 -0000
Received: (qmail 19984 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2001 23:27:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142)
  by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 16 Aug 2001 23:27:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47)
  by mta3 with SMTP; 16 Aug 2001 23:27:06 -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 <20010816232701.TSLD710.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew>
          for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 00:27:01 +0100
Reply-To: <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] Second session on Record: anaphora
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 00:26:05 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMMEFOEJAA.a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
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: <c8.193bb138.28ad522e@aol.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Importance: Normal
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 9704

pc:
> a.rosta@ntlworld.com writes:
>   > {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}.
>
>   ADD:
>
>   One level down from {no'a xi ro} is {no'a xi da'a}, two levels down
>   is {no'a xi da'a re}, etc.
>
> I'm not so sure about this addition.  I think counting in one way is more
> than confusing enough (though it may be that counting down from the top is
> easier than up from the bottom).  The Book nor usage seem to exclude this but
> I don't want to put it in as recommended or the result of this discussion.

There is no better alternative way for counting down from the top, and no
competing interpretation for {no'a xi da'a}. If people find it confusing
then they're free not to use it.

--And.