From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Fri Sep 28 14:54:51 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 28 Sep 2001 21:54:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 60717 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2001 21:54:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 28 Sep 2001 21:54:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta03-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.43) by mta2 with SMTP; 28 Sep 2001 21:54:50 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.88.199]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010928215446.CGMY23687.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 22:54:46 +0100 Reply-To: To: "lojban" Subject: RE: [lojban] The Pleasures of goi (was: zipf computations & experimental cmavo Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 22:54:02 +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) In-Reply-To: <3BB37B6C.7010607@reutershealth.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal From: "And Rosta" John: > Invent Yourself wrote: > > no'u probably works like you think goi already does: > > > > ko'a goi la djan. .i li'o .i la fred. no'u ko'a > > ko'a is John. Fred is John. > > By no means: saying "ko'a no'u la djan." is bogus if ko'a is not > *already* defined. The whole point of goi (and cei) is their > defining nature. But you seem to be failing to recognize that ko'a, like cmene, do not have to be defined by goi. They can get their referent from context. English: It is big. Lojban: ko'a barda In neither case must it or ko'a have an antecedent in previous utterances. Furthermore, the referent need not even be accessible to the addressee: English: I read a certain book. Lojban: mi tcidu ko'a noi ke'a cukta ko'a ge cukta gi se tcidu mi --And.