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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 15:14:33 EDT

In a message dated 7/30/2001 11:06:59 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] 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.