Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0t4zNR-0000ZOC; Tue, 17 Oct 95 01:55 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id B47C0CFA ; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 0:55:24 +0100 Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 15:50:49 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: goi (was: "ko" considered bad) X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1829 Lines: 40 la kir cusku di'e > {... 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? Probably {ra} would work there. The problem is that the sentence in English is too loose, you wouldn't use {binxo} in Lojban like that. "It" refers to the su'ivla "ko'i", not to the sumti ko'i: zo ko'i co'a sinxa la djan ijonai ra pujeca sinxa lo drata > {... ko'a goi ko'e ...} - {ko'a} becomes {la meris.} or {ko'e} > becomes {la djan.} ??? 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}. > In your example {ko goi mi'o} we think that {mi'o} is usually defined better > than {ko}, but what is general rule? Why would we think that? {mi'o} is +, while {ko} is only , so {ko} should always be better than or equally as well defined as {mi'o}. > And another question: does some way to set vocative scope? Something like: > "John, go to market and buy (Mary, don't cry!) some food!" If you set it inside the brackets, it is reasonable to suppose that it only applies within the brackets, in my opinion. Jorge