From snark!cowan Wed Jun 12 11:38:19 1991 Return-Path: Message-Id: Apparently-From: snark!cowan Subject: Re: GOI (was: Re: BAI) To: cbmvax!uunet!gnu.ai.mit.edu!grackle!bob Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 11:34:14 EDT From: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <9106112015.AA02244@grackle.UUCP>; from "grackle!bob" at Jun 11, 91 4:15 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL13] Status: RO la bab. tcySEL. cusku di'e: > A while back, John Cowan's clarified for me how the members of > GOI work (other than GOI itself) by using an explanation in which the > construct is expanded into a longer relative clause. Here is what > John said: > > Each of the members of GOI (other than GOI itself, which is used for > anaphora assignment and isn't closely related) can be expanded into a > relative clause with poi/noi, thus: > > pe -> poi srana (which is relevant to) > ne -> noi srana (which, incidentally, is relevant to) I must add that this explanation holds only when the GOIs are followed by sumti. The grammar of GOI actually allows a "term", which includes tagged sumti and their close relatives, tag+KU constructs. These do not admit such a simple equivalence: le cukta pe vi means "the book that is here", "the nearby book", and not "the book which is relevant to something near here." Note also that the Lojban "possessive" is equivalent in meaning to "pe": le mi cukta = le cukta pe mi le vi cukta = le cukta pe vi This is a correction to the statement in JL that the possessive is equivalent to "po". As far as I know, no uses have been defined for tagged sumti following any of the other GOIs, nor for the other grammatical possibilities, termsets and NA+KUs. -- cowan@snark.thyrsus.com ...!uunet!cbmvax!snark!cowan e'osai ko sarji la lojban