From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Tue Aug 21 08:21:14 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 21 Aug 2001 15:21:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 16588 invoked from network); 21 Aug 2001 15:18:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Aug 2001 15:18:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta3 with SMTP; 21 Aug 2001 15:18:07 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Tue, 21 Aug 2001 15:56:41 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 16:23:28 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 16:23:00 +0100 To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] Toward a {ce'u} record Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta John: #In general, "ri" skips things where the meaning is the same on repetition: #"ri" skips "mi" and "do" and "ko'a" and "da".=20=20 I think this rule needs further consideration and specification before it is made authoritative. "ro broda", "lo pa broda", "lo'i broda", "lo du'u/ka broda" would mean the same on repetition, but are they to be skipped? (There's also the problem that "do" can change referents midsentence, unless Lojban excludes this by stipulation.) (And then there's the contrast between: 1. Only Prince Charles remembers marrying Diana (True] 2. Only Prince Charles remembers him marrying Diana (False) where in (2) a mere repeater anaphor is sufficient, while in (1) we require (as the marrier sumti) something different and more ce'u-like.) #But it certainly should not skip "ce'u", since repeating "ce'u" is somethi= ng #quite different. Certainly. --And.