From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Mon Jul 30 19:23:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 31 Jul 2001 02:23:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 56898 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2001 02:23:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 31 Jul 2001 02:23:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta3 with SMTP; 31 Jul 2001 02:23:23 -0000 Received: from m27-mp1-cvx2c.bre.ntl.com ([62.253.88.27] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 15ROwc-0000QY-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 03:07:39 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Tidying notes on {goi} Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 03:22:36 +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) In-Reply-To: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal From: "And Rosta" John: > And Rosta scripsit: > > This was the objection, but I dispute that it is always clear which > > sumti has or lacks a referent. > > It was pointed out at Logfest that bi'u on one side of the goi would > disambiguate which side is new (definiens). I'd already thought of and rejected that idea. OK, yes the sumti marked bi'u or bi'unai must have a referent, because otherwise it could not be informative, but it will not necessarily be new information, and we don't want to be obliged to mark it as old or new information just in order to show that it has a referent. I remain convinced that the simplest solution is the one I suggested (i.e. make goi & no'u nonsynonymous). --And.