Return-Path: Message-Id: From: cowan (John Cowan) Subject: Re: Autoconversion of goi??? To: lojban-list Date: Tue, 14 May 91 14:38:48 EDT In-Reply-To: <9105131539.AA04162@luna.math.ucla.edu>; from "math.ucla.edu!jimc" at May 13, 91 8:39 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL13] Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Tue May 14 14:39:24 1991 X-From-Space-Address: cowan la djim. kartr. cusku di'e: > 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. > 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. Grammatically, "A goi B" is legal where A and B may be any sumti. Semantically, though, either A or B should be a pro-sumti. (The word "anaphor" has too many problems when the thing "anaphorized" actually follows, and saying "anaphor/cataphor" is just too awkward for me.) The whole purpose of "goi" (and its selbri analogue, "cei") is pro-sumti (viz. pro-bridi) assignment, and use where either A or B is not a pro-sumti is of doubtful meaning. The general case should use "no'u", which is the non-restrictive appositional phrase marker and means "which incidentally is". -- cowan@snark.thyrsus.com ...!uunet!cbmvax!snark!cowan e'osai ko sarji la lojban