Subject: anaphora (was: RE: [lojban] Re: soi vo'a and embedded bridi)

From: "And Rosta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 01:57:02 +0100

Nick:
> If {vo'a} is to be a long-distance reflexive only, it has to be
> long-distance all the way. Whether or not Lojban Central thought through
> all the consequences in 1991, we have to be adamant about this, or else
> {vo'a} becomes as vague as {ra}.

I fully agree, and I'm delighted that at long last we're trying to beat
some sense into the anaphora system. My feeling is that we should use
only
ri 
ri xi PA
nei
no'a xi PA
no'a xi ro, no'a xi da'a PA[1]
go'i, go'e, go'e xi PA, go'o, go'o xi PA

and shun[2] ra, ru, go'a, go'u. The vo'a series are redundant but perhaps
useful for their brevity compared to {no'a xi ro}, though {no'a xi ro},
is more flexible, because it allows {xe xi PA no'a (xi ro)} and 
{jai BAI no'a (xi ro)}.

[1 I suggest {no'a da'a PA} for counting down from main bridi, but {ri ni'u 
PA} for counting forwards to future sumti}.]

[2 Shunned when we wish to say what me mean, not when we wish to say any
old nebulosity and trust to the intelligence of our interlocutor to
surmise our intention.]

--And.