Re: [lojban] Tidying notes on {goi}

[pycyn@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/30/2001 11:06:59 AM Central Daylight Time,
jcowan@reutershealth.com writes:

> But {bi'u} already has a different function there. In {le bi'u nanmu
> goi ko'a}, we want ko'a to be the one that gets assigned the referent
> of {le bi'u nanmu}, not the other way around.

Yes, of course; I was too elliptical.  I meant "le nanmu goi bi'u ko'a"
marks "ko'a" (the dependent of goi) as definiens; of course "bi'unai"
would mark it as definiendum.

Now I'm confused -- just when I thought this was winding down.  In {le nanmu
go bi'u ko'a} , {ko'a} is the definiens, that is sets the referent of {le
nanmu}, the definiendum, but it is also the new information and so is less
likely than {le nanmu} to have an established referent in context.  Some part
of this description does not fit the pattern wanted, but I can't figure out
which, so I still don't know whether the (current or to be established)
referent of {ko'a} is attached to {le nanmu} or conversely.