From pycyn@aol.com Mon Jul 30 12:15:32 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 30 Jul 2001 19:15:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 92895 invoked from network); 30 Jul 2001 19:14:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Jul 2001 19:14:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m06.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.161) by mta3 with SMTP; 30 Jul 2001 19:14:37 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.9.) id r.9b.189c20c2 (4532) for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 15:14:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <9b.189c20c2.28970c19@aol.com> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 15:14:33 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Tidying notes on {goi} To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_9b.189c20c2.28970c19_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_9b.189c20c2.28970c19_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/30/2001 11:06:59 AM Central Daylight Time, jcowan@reutershealth.com writes: > > But {bi'u} already has a different function there. In {le bi'u nanmu > > goi ko'a}, we want ko'a to be the one that gets assigned the referent > > of {le bi'u nanmu}, not the other way around. > > Yes, of course; I was too elliptical. I meant "le nanmu goi bi'u ko'a" > marks "ko'a" (the dependent of goi) as definiens; of course "bi'unai" > would mark it as definiendum. > Now I'm confused -- just when I thought this was winding down. In {le nanmu go bi'u ko'a} , {ko'a} is the definiens, that is sets the referent of {le nanmu}, the definiendum, but it is also the new information and so is less likely than {le nanmu} to have an established referent in context. Some part of this description does not fit the pattern wanted, but I can't figure out which, so I still don't know whether the (current or to be established) referent of {ko'a} is attached to {le nanmu} or conversely. --part1_9b.189c20c2.28970c19_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/30/2001 11:06:59 AM Central Daylight Time,
jcowan@reutershealth.com writes:


> But {bi'u} already has a different function there. In {le bi'u nanmu
> goi ko'a}, we want ko'a to be the one that gets assigned the referent
> of {le bi'u nanmu}, not the other way around.

Yes, of course; I was too elliptical.  I meant "le nanmu goi bi'u ko'a"
marks "ko'a" (the dependent of goi) as definiens; of course "bi'unai"
would mark it as definiendum.


Now I'm confused -- just when I thought this was winding down.  In {le nanmu
go bi'u ko'a} , {ko'a} is the definiens, that is sets the referent of {le
nanmu}, the definiendum, but it is also the new information and so is less
likely than {le nanmu} to have an established referent in context.  Some part
of this description does not fit the pattern wanted, but I can't figure out
which, so I still don't know whether the (current or to be established)
referent of {ko'a} is attached to {le nanmu} or conversely. --part1_9b.189c20c2.28970c19_boundary--