Re: goi (was: "ko" considered bad)

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

la kir cusku di'e

>     {... 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?

Probably {ra} would work there. The problem is that the sentence in English
is too loose, you wouldn't use {binxo} in Lojban like that. "It" refers
to the su'ivla "ko'i", not to the sumti ko'i:

        zo ko'i co'a sinxa la djan ijonai ra pujeca sinxa lo drata


>     {... ko'a goi ko'e ...}       - {ko'a} becomes {la meris.} or {ko'e}
>                                     becomes {la djan.} ???

In my opinion, {goi} only makes sense when one of {ko'a, ko'e, ..., fo'a,
fo'e,..., by, cy,...} is on one side and none of those is on the other.
If {ko'a} or whatever is already defined, {goi} reassigns it the new value.
All other uses seem not quite right to me. I don't even like {do goi la kir}
or {mi goi la xorxes}, which are not needed anyway, since they would
supposedly say the same as {do no'u la kir} or {mi no'u la xorxes}.

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

Why would we think that? {mi'o} is <speaker(s)>+<audience>, while {ko} is
only <audience>, so {ko} should always be better than or equally as well
defined as {mi'o}.

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

If you set it inside the brackets, it is reasonable to suppose that it
only applies within the brackets, in my opinion.

Jorge