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

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

pc:
> arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:
> <<
> 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. 
> >>
> It would be nightmarish to make it fundamental to the language 
> (sadistic, too). We all agree that forethoughting is a general 
> solution except for the forethoughting part and that the usual 
> afterthought devices won't work (unless you mean those 
> three-levels-up --and two-places--over types that are even less 
> practical than straight back-counting). 

No disagreement from me about this, except that I do feel that
some sort of strategy that involves backcounting is probably the
most effective way to get unambiguous anaphora. Obviously, faffing
about with xi-subscripting is a bit traumatic, but were we doing
LoCCan3 I'd have certain suggestions involving backcounting, by
way of being the least bad solution.

--And.