From cbmvax!uunet!math.ucla.edu!jimc Mon May 13 18:29:12 1991
Return-Path: <cbmvax!uunet!math.ucla.edu!jimc>
From: cbmvax!uunet!math.ucla.edu!jimc
Return-Path: <jimc@math.ucla.edu>
Message-Id: <9105131539.AA04162@luna.math.ucla.edu>
To: lojban-list@snark.thyrsus.com
Subject: Autoconversion of goi???
Date: Mon, 13 May 91 08:39:25 -0700
Status: RO

In your discussion of David Elsworthy's donkey sentences, you (goi 
la lojbab) write:

   le nanla goi ko'a poi jerna ko'e cu cpacu ko'e goi lo velcnemu poi ko'a
      djica

   le  nanla goi           ko'a poi   jerna ko'e cu cpacu
   The boy   also-known-as x1   which earns x2      gets

   ko'e goi                 lo             velcnemu    poi   ko'a djica
   x2   which-is-defined-as the-thing-that is-a-reward which x1   desires

I see here "le nanla goi ko'a" where the main phrase is the antecedent of
the anaphor, and also "ko'e goi lo velcnemu..." where the anaphor is
the main phrase.  Is this really allowed?  For humans speaking normally
it is fairly easy to distinguish the anaphor from its newly assigned
antecedent, but to nail down the difference in all possible circumstances
may be more difficult.  I would recommend that "se" (explicit conversion)
be required on one ordering or the other.

If "goi" may be used to "also-known-as" a pair of non-anaphor sumti,
you have two interpretations of "A goi B": one analogous to the anaphor
case in which one sumti is primary and the other is a symbol or
abbreviation for it, and another where A and B are alternative
specifications of the same referent set each of which can stand on its
own.  That's commutative whereas the first interpretation is not.

In general, I think that David has revealed many problems with English,
and you have given good examples of how Lojban avoids them.  

		-- jimc