1. on "ri .e ra": My understanding is that "ri" would refer back to the
last sumti, which is the cat. Then, "ra" would refer back to the
next-to-last sumti - the first being "ri", which is NOT permanently
assigned, and so is available as a referent. This makes "ra" refer again
to the cat. You could instead (though I don't recommend it) use "ri .e ru"
or "ra .e ra".
Boy, I hope you are wrong about that (my Book is not handy): {ri/a/u} was one of the cases -- I thought -- where genuine accuracy was possible in pronouns. [Jordan, note the slippery "sumti" here]
<. What I'd probably do is use "gy. .e my.".>
Fuzzier in theory but probably more effective here (even than {ri/a} ). Do we really need a double glottal stop (The !Qon word for "ice box" springs to mind).
You always, of course, have the option (shorter than some of the
alternatives proposed) of using "le gerku .e le mlatu". Was is pycyn. who
once pointed out that repetition is also a form of reference (of course,
when he said it, it was witty).
<You always, of course, have the option (shorter than some of the
alternatives proposed) of using "le gerku .e le mlatu". Was is pycyn. who
once pointed out that repetition is also a form of reference (of course,
when he said it, it was witty).>
What he said was "Repetition is also anaphora," witty mainly if you recall that "anaphora" is Greek for "repetition" -- linguistic anaphora is mainly ways to avoid the literal version.
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor |
| |
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.