Re: [lojban] Second session on Record: anaphora

[pycyn@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/13/2001 10:17:21 PM Central Daylight Time,
cowan@ccil.org writes:

> > But if bridi anaphora is
> > needed, perhaps it would be better to recognize that LE too starts a
> > subordinate bridi and then do without {nei}, thus avoiding one round of
> > paradoxes and yet covering all the practical cases (I think, but have
not
> > pushed the process too far). ]
>
> This is said too elliptically for me to understand what you mean.

LE does not start a subordinate bridi grammatically, although the selbri
in it logically implies a bridi.

The idea behind making {le} also subordinate a bridi then is that any use of
a bridi anaphora will be subordinated at least one level and thus be {no'a}
of some degree and there will be no place for {nei} and its paradoxes.  The
second place of the present bridi would be {le se no'a}, the {le} requiring
the one-up shift.