From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Wed Jul 18 12:00:19 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 18 Jul 2001 19:00:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 75066 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2001 19:00:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Jul 2001 19:00:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta3 with SMTP; 18 Jul 2001 19:00:14 -0000 Received: from m90-mp1-cvx1b.bir.ntl.com ([62.255.40.90] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 15MwJN-000181-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 19:44:41 +0100 To: "Lojban@Yahoogroups. Com" Subject: goi Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 19:59:24 +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) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" 1. The Refgram, pp150-151 exx 5.2-3 explicitly says that "la alis goi ko'a" and "ko'a goi la alis", both in sentences where the referent of "la alis" has already been established, are equivalent. I think this is mistake. The function of {goi} should be to assign the referent of one (referential) sumti (which should be the first one) to another sumti (which should be the second one). Hence "ko'a goi la alis" should mean "It, which I shall hereafter refer to as 'la alis'", while the textbook's "ko'a goi la alis" ought to be "ko'a no'u la alis". 2. Jorge tells me that (or so I understood), {da goi la ab da goi la ac} is equivalent to {da xi pa goi la ab da xi re goi la ac}, i.e. because it assigns its value to the goi sumti, it is bound by a different quantifier (that is, it is a different variable). This seems reasonable enough, but I'd like to confirm that I understood correctly. --And.