From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Fri Sep 07 05:51:46 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 7 Sep 2001 12:51:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 55599 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2001 12:51:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Sep 2001 12:51:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta01-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.41) by mta3 with SMTP; 7 Sep 2001 12:51:46 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.173]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010907125144.NPUR15984.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 13:51:44 +0100 To: "Lojban@Yahoogroups. Com" Subject: sumti antecedents Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 13:51:00 +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) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10530 According to http://nuzban.wiw.org/wiki/index.php?construal%20of%20antecedents%20of%20sumti%2 0anaphors the sumti antecedent of an anaphor repeats any quantification within the sumti. Although this was written by me, I'm sure I wrote it up because there had been some agreement on it. I don't object if the agreement is rescinded; I just want to point out that I am not imagining that it fleetingly existed. --And.