Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0t5jl3-0000ZOC; Thu, 19 Oct 95 03:26 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id D292636D ; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 2:26:56 +0100 Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 19:29:31 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: goi (was: "ko" considered bad) X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 718 Lines: 16 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