Re: [lojban] Re: Shakespearian word order

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

xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
> > > > > > xorxes:
> > > > > > > > > > FOOL: All thy other titles thou hast given away:
> > > > > > > > > >       That thou wast born with.
> > > > > > > 2)   ro lo do drata noltcita do se bejdu'a zo'au ny poi do se
> > jinzi
> > >
> > > Yes. I'm assuming {ny} is under the scope of {ro}, and bound by it.
> > 
> > OK. We see here the pitfalls of glorky anaphora...
> 
> I think there's no glorking for that bit. I take every bare anaphor 
> to be bound by the quantifier of its antecedent if it falls 
> under its scope. 

Quite right, if the antecedent is indeed a variable.

> To get the unbound meaning I'd have to use an
> explicit {tu'oboi ny} here. The only glorking is in identifying 
> {ro lo do drata noltcita} as the antecedent, but bare {lo do drata 
> noltcita} is not a candidate. I think.

Why is {lo do drata noltcita} not a candidate?

--And.