From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Mon Oct 01 06:06:02 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 1 Oct 2001 13:06:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 32958 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2001 13:06:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Oct 2001 13:06:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta2 with SMTP; 1 Oct 2001 13:05:56 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Mon, 1 Oct 2001 13:43:17 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 01 Oct 2001 14:14:55 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 14:14:50 +0100 To: lojbab , lojban Subject: RE: [lojban] The Pleasures of goi (was: zipf computations & experimental cmavo Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta Lojbab: #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. # #I think i) is dealt with by recognizing that using goi is a kind of=20 #metalinguistic speech act. One is not merely casually noting what ko'a=20 #means; one is actively defining it (implicit ca'e?) and more or less=20 #insisting it be used with that definition;=20 certainly I agree that goi *assigns* reference. #ii) is not something we designed=20 #ko'a to be used for, if I understand what you mean by it. If I wanted to= =20 #assign a cmene, I would not use goi, but rather ko'a noi se cmene [name]=20 #(or ne me'e [name]) I think in this respect you're atypical of lojbanists. My sense is that the= re's nothing unorthodoz about using goi to assign a reference to a name, e.g. "le nanmu goi la djoblogz". And whether or not I'm right about that, there is a distinction between=20 *claiming* (i.e. truly or falsely), using noi and ne, that X is called Y, a= nd *assigning* referent X to name Y (i.e. performatively decreeing that X is called Y).. I would have thought that computer programmers would be familiar with=20 this distinction (or are my memories of c. 1980 Basic *totally* obsolete?). --And.