Re: goi

["Adam Raizen" <araizen@newmail.net>]

la and cusku di'e

> 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.)

Another possible way to do this, without using "ko'a", would be with
"makau". It seems that, in addition to its regular function (or maybe
this is another way to describe its regular function), "kau" indicates
a large amount of specificity. For example, in "mi djuno le du'u makau
klama le zarci", "da" is a referent of "makau" in many (probably most)
cases, but it's not what is meant by the person saying the sentence.
Thus, I think that "le broda" is basically equivalent to "makau poi
ke'a broda" (ignoring your veridicality issues, though I'm sure you
can get them back if you want). In addition, a phrase like "how I
learned Lojban" should sometimes be something like "makau poi ta'i
ke'a mi cilre fi la lojban" and not "ta'i makau mi cilre fi la
lojban", since the English sometimes refers to a method, and not a
proposition. For example "He learned Lojban how I learned Lojban" ->
"ko'a cilre fi la lojban ta'i makau poi ta'i ke'a mi cilre fi la
lojban". At least it avoids "ko'a", which most people want to look for
a previous referent for.

mu'o mi'e adam