Re: [lojban] Second session on Record: anaphora

[pycyn@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/16/2001 6:29:06 PM Central Daylight Time,
a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:

I don't see how this avoids self-referential problems, since the
antecedent of no'a contains no'a.

True, but that problem is unavoidable with this sort of anaphora.  It does
get rid of {nei}, however and thus of the simple self referential bridi
{nei}.  The simple {no'a} is

either meaningless or not self-referential in that special way.

We are agreed that as selbri of grammatical bridi (i.e. when not in

sumti tail), nei and no'a are useless. If we are nonetheless worried
about the philosophical problems of no'a and nei then my syntactic
definition of them fixes the philosophical problems.

These seem to be lost somewhere in this thread.  Could you repeat them for
the record?