Re: [lojban] Tidying notes on {goi}

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la pycyn cusku di'e

> <
> In {da goi la alfas} la alfas cannot have a previous referent.
> If it does, then it is gobbledygook.>
>
> Under which set of rules? Why can this not (under the present rules) not
> just be the namely rider on {da}, "there is an x, namely Alpha?"

That's {no'u}. {goi} might end up meaning that when there is nothing
to assign, but strictly it does not.


> <
> That's what I thought. You will have to correct you demonstration
> then, as you leave xy dangling unassigned in the middle of it:>
>
> Ummm! I thought that was your example; it isn't mine (who else was in this
> discussion?)

You used it in actual usage, not as an example now but some 800
messages back, in the demonstration that no number is the highest
number. That's what I remembered when And asked for a way to use
names as bound variables. I found your {da goi xy} back then very
elegant and useful, but you can't do a general da'o so as to recycle
da, and then keep using xy with its original binding.

> <What happens if The Book is in contradiction with Logic? Which one
> wins?>
>
> As Lojbab says, during the freeeze, the book does.

My question was meant to be rhetorical. I cannot believe you and
Lojbab can seriously expect us to put logic on hold for five years,
I must be missing something.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp