Re: GOI (was: Re: BAI)

la bab. tcySEL. cusku di'e:
> A while back, John Cowan's clarified for me how the members of
> GOI work (other than GOI itself) by using an explanation in which the
> construct is expanded into a longer relative clause.  Here is what
> John said:
> 
>     Each of the members of GOI (other than GOI itself, which is used for
>     anaphora assignment and isn't closely related) can be expanded into a
>     relative clause with poi/noi, thus:
> 
>             pe -> poi srana (which is relevant to)
>             ne -> noi srana (which, incidentally, is relevant to)

I must add that this explanation holds only when the GOIs are followed
by sumti.  The grammar of GOI actually allows a "term", which includes
tagged sumti and their close relatives, tag+KU constructs.  These do not
admit such a simple equivalence:

	le cukta pe vi

means "the book that is here", "the nearby book", and not "the book
which is relevant to something near here."

Note also that the Lojban "possessive" is equivalent in meaning to "pe":

	le mi cukta = le cukta pe mi
	le vi cukta = le cukta pe vi

This is a correction to the statement in JL that the possessive is equivalent
to "po".

As far as I know, no uses have been defined for tagged sumti following
any of the other GOIs, nor for the other grammatical possibilities,
termsets and NA+KUs.

-- 
cowan@snark.thyrsus.com		...!uunet!cbmvax!snark!cowan
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban