From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sat Jul 28 14:30:37 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 28 Jul 2001 21:30:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 12692 invoked from network); 28 Jul 2001 21:30:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Jul 2001 21:30:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta1 with SMTP; 28 Jul 2001 21:30:37 -0000 Received: from m189-mp1-cvx1b.bir.ntl.com ([62.255.40.189] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 15QbQC-0003YF-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 22:14:53 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Tidying notes on {goi} Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 22:29:49 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <9f.18b77086.28907d37@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 8986 pc: > Cowan: > normal quantifier, so the second {su'o da} means "one or more of (the > existing) da", not very useful.But ro da poi .... re da would mean "two of > those which etc."> > > Well, those are remarkably UNnormal quantifiers in logic, but right for that > part of lojban that has the standard sumti as quantifier-gadri-bridi.i.e., > quantifier-sumti. The point is also correct. I'm surprised. I'd have thought that there is a one-to-one correspondence between variables and quantifiers, tho I recognize that what John says is indeed useful. > &: > means of a ko'a, and that{le broda} = {ko'a noi je'u cu'i ke'a broda}. > Veridical specifics,which are common in English, cannot be rendered in Lojban > bya gadri and so for these ko'a is the only usage option.> > A solution to one of our ongoing problems, I suppose, but that does not mean > it requires retrofitting all the rest of the grammar around {ko'a}, as indeed > it doesn't. The only retrofitting involved is to alter the semantics of {goi} slightly, so that it is no longer synonymous with {no'u}. > <(Note btw that I take 'incidental' clauses to be nonrestrictive but not > parenthetical; i.e. as if 'incidental' is a bit of a misnomer.)> > A piece of Lojban technical terminology a misnomer! What a shocking idea! > (Is there one in English that really fits?) 'Nonrestrictive', which is the more usual term, in fact. > Problem: Although {goi} is usually introduced as device for assigning a more > convenient sumti to carry the freight for a more complex one -- a KOhA for a > long name or a highly particularized abstract, for example -- often using the > analogy of the legal "hereinafter called 'the Company,'" the Book assigns it > another role and writers have used it in still others, with the result that > its "primary" role gets lost. Further, even in that role, the way {goi} has > been used has allowed for unclarity: which of the terms connected is to be > identified with which, assuming that one or the other or both eventually get > established. While in practice this is usually clear, in theory -- and often > enough to worry in practice -- it is not. > > Proposal (clarification?): {goi} is always defining and always takes the form > {x goi y}, where y is assigned the value of x. > > Support: This agrees with the elementary introduction of {goi} and answers > the question of which identification to seek when both are lacking or to > follow when they appear to be inconflict. Other uses of {goi} are covered by > {no'u}. > > Objection. (I really need help here, since the one objection seems to be that > we sometimes want to do the defining in the reverse order and so need {goi} > not {no'u}, which is only factual, not defining. This seems to trivial to > bother with -- and can {goi} take {se} if it really makes a difference?) (It can't take SE without a grammar change, can it?) > Summary. This looks like a trivial and acceptable clarification, to be > agreed to. Good. Next, when time permits, is to ask about the difference between {goi/no'u ... ge'u ku} and {ku goi/no'u ... ge'u}. But time doesn't permit, so I'll leave that hanging in the air in case someone else wants to pick up on it. --And.