Message-Id: <199510182353.TAA23432@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Wed, 18 Oct 1995 19:29:31 +0100
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: goi (was: "ko" considered bad)
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

Xrx:
> In my opinion, {goi} only makes sense when one of {ko'a, ko'e, ...,
> fo'a, fo'e,..., by, cy,...} is on one side and none of those is on
> the other. If {ko'a} or whatever is already defined, {goi} reassigns
> it the new value. All other uses seem not quite right to me. I don't
> even like {do goi la kir} or {mi goi la xorxes}, which are not needed
> anyway, since they would supposedly say the same as {do no'u la kir}
> or {mi no'u la xorxes}.

I mainly agree with you. But {goi la} seems useful for ad hoc naming
- "which shall henceforward in this text be named X".
So {ti nou la bil} means "this, which is Bill", while {ti goi la bil}
means "this, which will henceforward be denoted by 'Bill'".

---
And