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

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

John:
> 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 

The rule is clear and doesn't seem particularly unnatural to me
(relative to the average degree of unnaturalness in Lojban and
in Lojban anaphora in particular).

--And.