Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id KAA28654 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 10:46:58 -0400 Message-Id: <199510161446.KAA28654@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id EC38D02F ; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 10:45:07 -0400 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: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <199510131913.WAA10105@feast.fe.msk.ru>; from "Logical Language G." at Fri, 13 Oct 1995 14:38:43 -0400 Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Mon Oct 16 10:47:01 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU 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'