Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 11:40:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199801301640.LAA00365@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: goi (was Re: fuzzy bears) X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-UIDL: 2bd5698830afee1f9e776d60fd358a93 X-Mozilla-Status: 8003 X-From-Space-Date: Fri Jan 30 11:31:55 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - Jorge: > >Change the example to: > > > > i le ci cribe ku goi ko'a cu sipna > > i ko'a vreta le ko'a ckana > > > >and I would understand it as saying that the set/group is referent > >of "ko`a", & therefore that the whole group lies on the whole > >group`s beds. I.e. a kind of massification. > > Yes, I suppose. And the same for {ko'a goi le ci cribe}? > I don't like having to use {ku}. Yes. However, I'm a bit confused about how goi works. If you have X goi Y, and one or both of them have *already* been assigned a referent, what happens? Does the referent stay, or is it overridden and replaced by the new referent? I had intuitively felt that goi should assign new reference to the following term (tho I know this isn;t quite how it works officially). One solution I've been using in text at home is to use ko`a bi`u when ko`a has not previously been assigned a referent, and ko`a when it is being used anaphorically. --And