goi (was: "ko" considered bad)

[Cyril Slobin <slobin@FEAST.FE.MSK.RU>]

coi

> Though I think I would be more inclined to use  "ko goi mi'o" since we are
> redefining rather than restrictively identifying ko.

I have one related question here: {goi} is defined as being symmetical.
It gives us additional freedom when we have pro-sumti on one side and some
well-defined sumti on other. But the case with two pro-sumti seems obscure:

    {... ko'a goi la djan. ...}   - {ko'a} becomes {la djan.}
    {... la meris. goi ko'e ...}  - {ko'e} becomes {la meris.}
    {... ko'i goi ko'a ...}       - {ko'i} becomes {la djan.} too, at least
                                    unless it is already defined. BTW, what
                                    pro-* do you use for english "it" in my
                                    prevous sentence?
    {... ko'a goi ko'e ...}       - {ko'a} becomes {la meris.} or {ko'e}
                                    becomes {la djan.} ???

In your example {ko goi mi'o} we think that {mi'o} is usually defined better
than {ko}, but what is general rule?

And another question: does some way to set vocative scope? Something like:
"John, go to market and buy (Mary, don't cry!) some food!"

co'o mi'e kir.

--
Cyril Slobin <slobin@fe.msk.ru> `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said,
<http://www.fe.msk.ru/~slobin/> `it means just what I choose it to mean'