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

[John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>]

And Rosta scripsit:

> > > Why then would the antecedent be "la djan" in "le la djan mamta ri"?
> > > Isn't "le la djan mamta" the first complete sumti?
> > 
> > No. Look at the grammar and you'll see why. "la djan." is a
> > complete sumti 
> 
> Anyway, is "le la djan mamta" not a complete sumti? If it is,
> how come it is "la djan" that is the *first* complete sumti?

The idea is that ri is coreferential with the *rightmost* complete sumti
which precedes it, where sumti are ordered by their *leftmost* words.
Thus "le la djan mamta" is left of "la djan", and so "la djan" is the
rightmost complete sumti.

Arguably this definition violates a universal (it ignores nesting) but
it is the definition.

-- 
With techies, I've generally found John Cowan
If your arguments lose the first round http://www.reutershealth.com
Make it rhyme, make it scan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Then you generally can jcowan@reutershealth.com
Make the same stupid point seem profound! --Jonathan Robie