RE: [lojban] goi

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>]

John:
> And Rosta scripsit:
[...]
> > This is the problem. With "ko'a goi la alis" and "la alis
> > goi ko'a" if neither have explicitly been defined previously
> > then you have absolutely no idea which is referential (with
> > referent to be glorked from context) and which gets its
> > referent from the other. 
> 
> There is a kind of hierarchy of probability-of-definition:
> veridicals > non-veridicals > names > variables.  This is
> also a hierarchy of (increasing) semantic emptiness.

Things are too complicated for this to be a usable rule of
thumb.

> > That is, do I, the hearer, think
> > "Now who is 'la alis' likely to refer to?", or do I take
> > "la alis" as being used to label the certain something that
> > "ko'a" refers to?
> 
> If we haven't heard "ko'a" before, then it's just barely possible
> that it refers, but far more likely that "la .alis." refers.

If that is an observation about actual Lojban usage, then yes.
But otherwise, no. I hold that any specific referent can be
introduced into the discourse by 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 by
a gadri and so for these ko'a is the only usage option. (In
practise, of course, people prefer to use a gadri and do
without veridicality.)

> > > > while the textbook's "ko'a goi la alis" ought to be "ko'a
> > > > no'u la alis".
> 
> I would tend to say "la .alis. ki'a" if I didn't know which Alice
> was relevant, in either case.

OK, but under my proposals (viz. "X goi Y" = assign referent of
X to Y") the textual confusion is eradicated, and at no cost, 
because your "ko'a goi la alis" can be replaced by "ko'a no'u
la alis".

(Note btw that I take 'incidental' clauses to be nonrestrictive
but not parenthetical; i.e. as if 'incidental' is a bit of a
misnomer.)

--And.