Message-Id: <199602101625.LAA14131@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Sat, 10 Feb 1996 10:52:43 -0500
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      *old response on signs about grass, keeping off thereof
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
Content-Length: 955

Scott Brickner answers Steven:
>Sorry, I wansn't clear enough.  {do} (and respectively {ko}) refer to
>the *intended* reader of the sign.  Whether any reads it or not is
>irrelevant.  I opine the intended reader is anyone who considers walking
>on the grass.
>
>If I hang a sign out saying "trespassers will be shot", inability to
>read and understand isn't going to exempt you from its provisions.
>
>>>Generally, the referent of "do" is the intended recipient of the
>>>communication.  If the value of "do" is not obvious from context,
>>>one uses a vocative phrase to set its value.
>>>
>>>{ge'e doi xiskri ko na catra}
>
>I reiterate this.  If you think there could be some confusion about who
>do/ko is, stick "doi la tcidu /do'u/" (or something appropriate) on the
>front.

A choice that eliminates the question of readerhood is "doi se catni"
(+[be tu'a ti] for the pedantic) - addressing those whom the
sign/signwriter has authority over.

lojbab