Subject: Re: [lojban] Tidying notes on {goi}

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 22:36:23

la pycyn cusku di'e

><
>In {da goi la alfas} la alfas cannot have a previous referent.
>If it does, then it is gobbledygook.>
>
>Under which set of rules? Why can this not (under the present rules) not
>just be the namely rider on {da}, "there is an x, namely Alpha?"

That's {no'u}. {goi} might end up meaning that when there is nothing
to assign, but strictly it does not.

><
>That's what I thought. You will have to correct you demonstration
>then, as you leave xy dangling unassigned in the middle of it:>
>
>Ummm! I thought that was your example; it isn't mine (who else was in this
>discussion?)

You used it in actual usage, not as an example now but some 800
messages back, in the demonstration that no number is the highest
number. That's what I remembered when And asked for a way to use
names as bound variables. I found your {da goi xy} back then very
elegant and useful, but you can't do a general da'o so as to recycle
da, and then keep using xy with its original binding.

><What happens if The Book is in contradiction with Logic? Which one
>wins?>
>
>As Lojbab says, during the freeeze, the book does.

My question was meant to be rhetorical. I cannot believe you and
Lojbab can seriously expect us to put logic on hold for five years,
I must be missing something.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp