Re: [jboske] anaphora & glorking (was: RE: sane kau? (was: RE: Re: RE: Re: lo'edu'u

[John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>]

And Rosta scripsit:

> I'm not sure whether ri involves glorking. What is the antecedent
> of ri in {le mamta be la djan ri}, and in {le mi mamta ri}? And is

la djan in the first case, le mi mamta in the second.
ri is coreferential with the most recently begun sumti that is complete,
regardless of nesting.

> the antecedent of {le broda} = {ro da poi cmima le'i broda} {da}
> or is it {ro da poi cmima le'i broda}? I don't know. 

I don't grok this one.

> As far as I know, lerfu sumti require glorking. Hang on while I
> check CLL.... Not clear from the book how recentness is ranked
> when sumti are within sumti, nor is it clear whether the antecedent
> is always the recentest sumti containing a name or description or 
> whether it can be lerfu sumti ("le nanmu ... ny ... le ninmu ...
> ny"), nor is it clear whether the lerfu sumti repeats the
> quantification of the antecedent... and so forth. 

Lerfu sumti trade off glork-free-ness for convenience.

-- 
All Norstrilians knew what laughter was: John Cowan
it was "pleasurable corrigible malfunction". http://www.reutershealth.com
--Cordwainer Smith, _Norstrilia_ jcowan@reutershealth.com