Re: {soi}

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

John:
> Note that
>        la djim. prami la .alis. soi dy.
>        Jim loves Alice [reciprocally] [reference to "la djim."].
> is technically bad (although probably interpretable) because "dy." corefers
> to Jim himself, just as "la djim." does, whereas "ri" refers directly to
> "la djim." and only indirectly to Jim himself.

Thanks for the explanation. Is the {dy}/{ri} difference that {dy} refers
to whatever its antecedent refers to, whereas {ri} repeats or reactivates
its antecedent (so the reference remains constant). Is this degree of
subtlety necessary?

You say the grammar is
  "soi <sumti-reference-1> <sumti-reference-2> [se'u]"
Is that osumtio in the syntactic or the semantic sense (i.e. is it
necessarily lexical)? And is that oreferenceo in the sense of oreferento
or in the sense of ocross-reference/pointero?

As weAre on this point, could you perhaps say whether x1, x2, x3 of {sumti}
and x1, x2, x3 of {bridi} refer to logicosemantic or to syntactic objects?
The definitions make it sound like theyAre logicosemantic, but in actual
usage theyAre almost always syntactic.
We should distinguish either between
   sumti               v.  vlasui/sumvla
   duu, bridi          v.  vlabri/brivla
                           (but this last standardly means selbrivla)
or
   sibsui/sumsio       v.  sumti
   duu, sibbri/brisio  v.  bridi

The giuste supports the former. Actual usage supports the latter.

---
And