Subject: Re: [lojban] Second session on Record: anaphora

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 12:43:24 EDT

In a message dated 8/13/2001 10:17:21 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> > > 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.
> 

The idea behind making {le} also subordinate a bridi then is that any use of 
a bridi anaphora will be subordinated at least one level and thus be {no'a} 
of some degree and there will be no place for {nei} and its paradoxes. The 
second place of the present bridi would be {le se no'a}, the {le} requiring 
the one-up shift.