From pycyn@aol.com Thu Jul 26 07:54:30 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 26 Jul 2001 14:54:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 87056 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2001 14:52:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 Jul 2001 14:52:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r08.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.104) by mta1 with SMTP; 26 Jul 2001 14:52:21 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.9.) id r.8e.18eb0b3e (16338) for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 10:52:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8e.18eb0b3e.289188a3@aol.com> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 10:52:19 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Tidying notes on {goi} To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_8e.18eb0b3e.289188a3_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 8932 --part1_8e.18eb0b3e.289188a3_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 7/25/2001 9:48:39 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > What has the world come to? I thought pc was going to be horrified > at this new binding of an already bound variable! >=20 Yes, I should, but i have lived with it for a quarter century in my Logical= =20 Language guise, so it seems quite natural to me (and a remarkably useful=20 device when you look at what Logic requires to achieve the same goal). The latter If it is useful to fix order and does not matter, then I would say to do it= =20 (if this really is what the objection means): it is only handy in one case,= =20 but that is just the hard case. I, on the other hand, over used it when people objected to the alphabetic=20 anaphora. --part1_8e.18eb0b3e.289188a3_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 7/25/2001 9:48:39 PM Central Daylight Time,=20
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


What has the world come t= o? I thought pc was going to be horrified
at this new binding of an already bound variable!


Yes, I should, but i have lived with it for a quarter century in my Log= ical=20
Language guise, so it seems quite natural to me (and a remarkably usefu= l=20
device when you look at what Logic requires to achieve the same goal).

<Anyway, how do we read this then:

=A0 =A0=A0 ro da poi prenu zo'u da prami su'o da

Is that {ro da poi prenu zo'u da prami da}, or is it
{ro da poi prenu ku'o ro de poi prenu zo'u da prami de}?>

The latter

<I would say that the objection is that it is not strictly
necessary to fix one order. In the cases where both sumti already
have a referent, goi makes no sense. In the cases where neither
has a referent, goi makes little sense, but none that requires the
connectands to be in a particular order anyway. And if one has
a referent and the other doesn't, it is clear which one gets assigned.
Of course, the order helps when the listener is in doubt as to what
the speaker means, so it works as a measure of redundancy.>

If it is useful to fix order and does not matter, then I would say to d= o it=20
(if this really is what the objection means): it is only handy in one c= ase,=20
but that is just the hard case.

<In any case, I find goi too cumbersome for actual use, so I don't
have a strong opinion one way or the other.>

I, on the other hand, over used it when people objected to the alphabet= ic=20
anaphora.


--part1_8e.18eb0b3e.289188a3_boundary--