From cowan@ccil.org Thu Jul 19 05:28:48 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 19 Jul 2001 12:28:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 99159 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2001 12:28:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Jul 2001 12:28:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mercury.ccil.org) (192.190.237.100) by mta2 with SMTP; 19 Jul 2001 12:28:41 -0000 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 15NCux-00088H-00; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 08:28:35 -0400 Subject: Re: [lojban] goi In-Reply-To: from And Rosta at "Jul 19, 2001 00:41:01 am" To: And Rosta Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 08:28:34 -0400 (EDT) Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: John Cowan From: John Cowan And Rosta scripsit: > Right. but I think this is a Bad Idea. There is a need for > a GOI that assigns reference, while the "goi" you describe is > identical to "no'u". Not really. "no'u" asserts (incidental) identity between two things referred to by sumti. "goi" unifies two sumti directly, asserting that they have the same referent. If the referents of the arguments (as it were) of "no'u" are not defined, the meaning is a mystery. Using "goi" is itself defining. > > If neither is defined, then if either should become > > defined in future, the other is also defined. > > This is the problem. With "ko'a goi la alis" and "la alis > goi ko'a" if neither have explicitly been defined previously > then you have absolutely no idea which is referential (with > referent to be glorked from context) and which gets its > referent from the other. There is a kind of hierarchy of probability-of-definition: veridicals > non-veridicals > names > variables. This is also a hierarchy of (increasing) semantic emptiness. > That is, do I, the hearer, think > "Now who is 'la alis' likely to refer to?", or do I take > "la alis" as being used to label the certain something that > "ko'a" refers to? If we haven't heard "ko'a" before, then it's just barely possible that it refers, but far more likely that "la .alis." refers. > > > while the textbook's "ko'a goi la alis" ought to be "ko'a > > > no'u la alis". I would tend to say "la .alis. ki'a" if I didn't know which Alice was relevant, in either case. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore --Douglas Hofstadter