From cowan@ccil.org Mon Aug 13 20:16:39 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 14 Aug 2001 03:16:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 31538 invoked from network); 14 Aug 2001 03:16:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 14 Aug 2001 03:16:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mercury.ccil.org) (192.190.237.100) by mta3 with SMTP; 14 Aug 2001 03:16:37 -0000 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 15WUhB-0007CX-00; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 23:16:45 -0400 Subject: Re: [lojban] Second session on Record: anaphora In-Reply-To: from And Rosta at "Aug 14, 2001 02:14:54 am" To: And Rosta Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 23:16:45 -0400 (EDT) Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: John Cowan From: John Cowan And Rosta scripsit: > > But if bridi anaphora is > > needed, perhaps it would be better to recognize that LE too starts a > > subordinate bridi and then do without {nei}, thus avoiding one round of > > paradoxes and yet covering all the practical cases (I think, but have not > > pushed the process too far). ] > > This is said too elliptically for me to understand what you mean. LE does not start a subordinate bridi grammatically, although the selbri in it logically implies a bridi. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore --Douglas Hofstadter