Subject: Re: [lojban] pro-sumti question

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 20:02:53 EDT

In a message dated 7/4/2002 4:37:58 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> 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.