Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0t4rIV-0000ZOC; Mon, 16 Oct 95 17:17 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 65A02EBA ; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 16:17:48 +0100 Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 17:42:28 +0300 Reply-To: Cyril Slobin Sender: Lojban list From: Cyril Slobin Organization: Institute for Commercial Engineering Subject: goi (was: "ko" considered bad) X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199510131913.WAA10105@feast.fe.msk.ru>; from "Logical Language G." at Fri, 13 Oct 1995 14:38:43 -0400 Content-Length: 1317 Lines: 29 coi > Though I think I would be more inclined to use "ko goi mi'o" since we are > redefining rather than restrictively identifying ko. I have one related question here: {goi} is defined as being symmetical. It gives us additional freedom when we have pro-sumti on one side and some well-defined sumti on other. But the case with two pro-sumti seems obscure: {... ko'a goi la djan. ...} - {ko'a} becomes {la djan.} {... la meris. goi ko'e ...} - {ko'e} becomes {la meris.} {... ko'i goi ko'a ...} - {ko'i} becomes {la djan.} too, at least unless it is already defined. BTW, what pro-* do you use for english "it" in my prevous sentence? {... ko'a goi ko'e ...} - {ko'a} becomes {la meris.} or {ko'e} becomes {la djan.} ??? In your example {ko goi mi'o} we think that {mi'o} is usually defined better than {ko}, but what is general rule? And another question: does some way to set vocative scope? Something like: "John, go to market and buy (Mary, don't cry!) some food!" co'o mi'e kir. -- Cyril Slobin `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, `it means just what I choose it to mean'