Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Get Much Ca$h !

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 23:43:52 GMT

> >The cmavo list is not always very precise. go'e repeats the
> >bridi only when used as the whole bridi, but go'e itself
> >is a brivla. Any brivla is a whole bridi when used by itself.
>
>I disagree with you. go'e and go'i repeat the whole bridi - the brivla AND
>the specific sumti that were associated with that brivla in the referenced
>bridi.

I don't disagree with you. But {go'e} itself is a brivla, not
always used as a bridi. It is a brivla that takes its meaning
from a bridi. It is grammatically a brivla. It is used as a brivla.
{le go'e} makes reference to the x1 of {go'e}, not to a bridi.
That is what the question was about. You must use {le du'u go'e}
to refer to the bridi, you can't use {le go'e} to refer to
the bridi.

>Thus le go'e or le go'i are referring to the x1 of that particular
>bridi, just as le klama refers to the x1 of some presumed bridi
>relationship based on klama.

Exactly what I said. We agree.

>Remember that the original use of the word is in answer to a yes/no
>question, which repeats the bridi asked about in that question.

When did I forget that?

>Likewise
>the pro-bridi usage "go'i ra'o" would be meaningless if go'i did not
>implicitly include some specific sumti values to be preserved by the ra'o.

I never said it didn't. {go'i} is a brivla with all those
meanings and implicit arguments.

>go'i has the grammar of a brivla, but unlike most brivla, it comes with
>specific values implied by default for all of its sumti, specifically all
>of those of the referenced bridi.

Exactly. So the cmavo list is not very precise in labeling it
as a bridi. We agree, really.

co'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.