From pycyn@aol.com Thu Aug 16 09:43:42 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 16 Aug 2001 16:43:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 39710 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2001 16:43:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 16 Aug 2001 16:43:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m06.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.161) by mta3 with SMTP; 16 Aug 2001 16:43:31 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.3.) id r.a7.1266fa57 (3990) for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 12:43:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 12:43:24 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Second session on Record: anaphora To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_a7.1266fa57.28ad522c_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_a7.1266fa57.28ad522c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/13/2001 10:17:21 PM Central Daylight Time, cowan@ccil.org 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. --part1_a7.1266fa57.28ad522c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/13/2001 10:17:21 PM Central Daylight Time,
cowan@ccil.org 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.  
--part1_a7.1266fa57.28ad522c_boundary--