From phma@oltronics.net Mon Oct 01 22:20:51 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: phma@oltronics.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 2 Oct 2001 05:19:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 54499 invoked by uid 0); 2 Oct 2001 05:15:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 15794 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2001 19:03:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.224 with QMQP; 1 Oct 2001 19:03:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO neofelis.ixazon.lan) (216.189.29.233) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Oct 2001 19:05:18 -0000 Received: by neofelis.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 500) id D77B13C477; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:00:16 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Reply-To: phma@oltronics.net To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] The Pleasures of goi Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:00:14 -0400 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01100115001403.29287@neofelis> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com From: Pierre Abbat The way {goi} behaves in my mind is like this: It assigns the word on the right the value of the word on the right rather than vice versa. It assigns a KOhA the value of a cmene or brivla sumti rather than vice versa. If both words are already assigned values, it reassigns one of them rather than equates them. What happens if these rules conflict is unclear to me. So, in {la djan. goi ko'a li'o la bab. goi fo'e li'o fo'e goi ko'a}, {ko'a} now refers to Bob, rather than John and Bob being the same. As to {da'o} deassigning {da}, I think it's a good idea. When Mark read my post about the plane attacks, in which I reused {da}, he thought it sounded like the plane was a hospital in downtown New York. phma