Re: Pro-sumti/pro-bridi paper, draft 1.1

[nsn (Nick Nicholas)]

>On the other hand, the
>term "antecedent" refers to a piece of language which a pro-sumti
>(or pro-bridi) implicitly repeats.  In Example 1.1, the antecedent of
>"we" is the phrase "speakers of Lojban".  Not all pro-sumti or pro-bridi
>have antecedents, but all of them have referents.

I think I'd use another pronoun to exemplify antecedent, one that closer
matches the antecedent prototype. A reflexive pronoun is always good for
that.

>There is no exact equivalent of the mi-series among pro-bridi.  However,
>we may create the effect of personal pro-bridi by using "me" before a
>mi-series pro-sumti.  

{du mi} may also be worth mentioning here, and its distinction from {me mi}
made explicit.

>2.6)	la bantas. me mi
>	Bantha pertains-to me.
>	Bantha is mine.
OR: Bantha is to do with me.

>In conversation, there is a special rule about "ta" and "tu" that is often
>helpful in interpreting them.  

This hic/iste/ille rule (which is news to me) was not mentioned with
regard to tenses (was it?) Should it be?

>It is important to distinguish between the English pronoun "this" and the
>English adjective "this" as in "this boat".  The latter is not represented
>in Lojban by "ti":
>3.1)	le ti bloti
>	the this boat
>does not mean "this boat" but rather "this's boat", "the boat associated
>with this thing."  The true Lojban translation of Example 3.1 is
>3.2)	le vi bloti

Is it worth adding also {ti noi bloti}?

>4.3)	dei jetnu
>	This-utterance is-true
>	What I am saying is true.
Hm. The colloquial meaning of that English translation is still {di'u jetnu}.
Word this more precisely.

>at the referent, but makes life easier for the speaker.  Can "ra" refer to
>the last sumti, like "ri"?  The answer is no if "ri" has also been used.

I think a {ri .e ra} example would be useful here.

>The cmavo "go'i", "go'a", and "go'u" follow exactly the same rules as
>"ri", "ra", and "ru", except that they are pro-bridi, and therefore repeat
>bridi, not sumti -- specifically, main sentence bridi.  Any bridi that
>are embedded within other bridi, such as relative clauses or abstractions,
>are not counted.  

Ouch. Actually, the need to get at such embedded bridi in anaphorisation
does arise occasionally. Is there anything we can do to do something about
it? Probably not...

Also some examples of backwards ri-counting across abstract sumti would be
nice...

Momenton senpretende paseman mi retenis kaj # [Victor Sadler, _Memkritiko_ 90]
   kultis kvazaux                           &  (NICK NICHOLAS. Melbourne.
      senhorlogxan elizeon                  #   Australia. IRC: nicxjo.
         (Dume:                             &   nsn@munagin.ee.mu.oz.au .)