Re: [jboske] ke'a/ce'u subscripting

[And Rosta <arosta@uclan.ac.uk>]

pc:
#All of these back-counting devices are psychologically unlikely to work.  
#They need, at best, back referring that picks out the right thing without 
#intermediate processing. Since the cases where this sort of problem arises 
#with {ke'a} and {ce'u} ought to be few (it is easier tofigure out another way 
#to sait than to figure out how to say it this way), this is not a major 
#problem, but a general solution would be useful. Replacing {ke'a} with 
#ordinary anaphora seems to work in the given case, but is not obviously a 
#general solution 

The solution I described in my original message is a general solution
(ke'a/ce'u goi ko'a zo'u): viz., ke'a/ce'u belong to the localmost candidate bridi they occur in.

I agree that backcounting is nightmarish if it's not made fundamental to the language. 

--And.