Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: djan. melbi vecnu

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 21:36:58 EDT

In a message dated 5/21/2001 3:56:58 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<It would have been nice to have a pro-sumti which refers to whatever
is in the prenex in a case like this>

> Make one up. Aren't there some cmavo that are reserved for experimental use?
> Use one of those, and tell us what so we understand you (well, the rest of
> the list. I'll need to wait till I can understand anything without staring
> at it for five minutes first) what cmavo it is. Maybe others will use it.
> 

I don't see the need for yet another set of anaphoric pronouns (I've lost 
count of how many we have now -- somewhere in the teens it seems like). 
Further, there can be more than one thing in the prenex, not even counting 
quantifier expressions (which, happily, have their own anaphoras). It seems 
that whatever would work if the sumti was in the first (few) place(s) of the 
sentence itself, would work also from the prenex. I used {ny} for {nuIORK} 
-- an irresistable temptation -- but that seems quite sufficient.
Lojban can do topic-comment sentences but is not a topic-comment language, so 
some minor adjustments can be expected.