From mark@kli.org Sun Sep 30 06:13:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: mark@kli.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 30 Sep 2001 13:12:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 74679 invoked from network); 30 Sep 2001 13:12:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.221 with QMQP; 30 Sep 2001 13:12:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n22.groups.yahoo.com) (10.1.2.82) by mta1 with SMTP; 30 Sep 2001 13:13:37 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: mark@kli.org Received: from [10.1.10.66] by cj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 30 Sep 2001 13:12:47 -0000 Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 13:12:47 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: The Pleasures of goi (was: zipf computations & experimental cmavo Message-ID: <9p75of+gso@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010930051622.00d90d50@pop.cais.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2554 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 162.33.229.2 From: mark@kli.org --- In lojban@y..., "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" wrote: > At 01:39 AM 9/30/01 +0100, And Rosta wrote: > >The possibility of goi-less ko'a is involved in only one of three key > >arguments for asymmetric goi. The other arguments are (i) that no'u > >serves the function of woldemarian symmetric goi, and (ii) that ko'a > >may already have a referent, which you want to assign to a cmene, and > >this must be distinguishable from assigning the referent of a cmene > >to a recycled ko'a. Maybe you guys would like to see this, which I posted on the Wiki s.v. "goi'a" (http://nuzban.wiw.org/wiki/index.php?goi%27a): What would be handier (and possibly already exists) would be a mechanism to unbind a single bound variable. I say this because reassigning ko'as isn't the only reason you'd want to be able to do this (besides, it isn't like there are so few ko'as that you should ever need to rebind them much, [if you use lerfu|lerfu pro-sumti, and why ko'a sucks].) What I see happen much more is overbinding of {da}. People get so hung up on ''da''=something and ''roda''=everything that it's hard to remember that once you've said ''roda poi X...'' if you talk about ''da'' or ''roda'' again right away, you're still bound in that subset of ''da'', and suddenly ''roda'' doesn't mean "everything" anymore and you have to remember to say ''rode'' and so on. ''--mi'e mark.'' ''Hence the utility of dada'o.'' Indeed. I therefore propose that ''da'o'' be used to specify assymetry in ''goi'' and ''cei'' assignments. Whichever element is da'o-ed is considered to be cleared out and overwritten by the new value. This may well mean redefining ''da'o'', which I think currently means "undefine everything." For that meaning, I propose ''da'oda'o''. DAhO has the same grammar as UI, near enough, so it can be considered to attach to things. ''da'o'' outside of goi/cei will retain the meaning of undefining whatever it's attached to. This, I think, is a pretty small change, not really munging baseline badly, and certainly it accords with grammar. And I think it neatly solves several problems at once. ''--mi'e mark'' I second. DAhO is another example of a selma'o that should not exist. Apparently the only difference with UI is that ''da'onai'' is not allowed, but it has a very useful meaning: when you want to emphasize that you are __not__ undefining something. So, whenever it is pertinent, ''da'o'' should be moved to UI. --mi'e [xorxes] (end of quoting) What think you, And et al? ~mark