History: goi'a

Source of version: 1 (current)

The proposal is this: la fred goi ko'a klama .i la djan goi ko'a klama ''means that fred and djan are the same, and that they are refered to as ko'a.'' la fred goi ko'a klama .i la djan goi'a ko'a klama ''means that in the second bridi, ko'a is reassigned and now refers to djan, but does not say that djan is fred.'' Thus, the ((goi)) page is correct, as is the book (as I understand it); and we also get to reassign just one ko'a-series cmavo. mi'e. ((kreig.daniyl.)) What would be handier (and possibly already exists) would be a mechanism to unbind a single bound variable. I say this because reassigning ko'as isn't the only reason you'd want to be able to do this (besides, it isn't like there are so few ko'as that you should ever need to rebind them much, ((lerfu pro-sumti, and why ko'a sucks|if you use lerfu)).) What I see happen much more is overbinding of {da}. People get so hung up on ''da''=something and ''roda''=everything that it's hard to remember that once you've said ''roda poi X...'' if you talk about ''da'' or ''roda'' again right away, you're still bound in that subset of ''da'', and suddenly ''roda'' doesn't mean "everything" anymore and you have to remember to say ''rode'' and so on. ''--mi'e mark.'' ''Hence the utility of dada'o.'' Indeed. I therefore propose that ''da'o'' be used to specify assymetry in ''goi'' and ''cei'' assignments. Whichever element is da'o-ed is considered to be cleared out and overwritten by the new value. This may well mean redefining ''da'o'', which I think currently means "undefine everything." For that meaning, I propose ''da'oda'o''. DAhO has the same grammar as UI, near enough, so it can be considered to attach to things. ''da'o'' outside of goi/cei will retain the meaning of undefining whatever it's attached to. This, I think, is a pretty small change, not really munging baseline badly, and certainly it accords with grammar. And I think it neatly solves several problems at once. ''--mi'e mark'' I second. DAhO is another example of a selma'o that should not exist. Apparently the only difference with UI is that ''da'onai'' is not allowed, but it has a very useful meaning: when you want to emphasize that you are __not__ undefining something. So, whenever it is pertinent, ''da'o'' should be moved to UI. --mi'e ((xorxes)) ''My ma'oste says nai negates the last word, whatever that may be.'' That's as may be, but the ''grammar'' does not permit a ''nai'' after ''da'o''. Putting one there would be like putting a ''nai'' in some random place in the sentence, which may or may not be legal, and even if legal, would technically negate the word before the ''da'o'', probably. All selma'o should ((dies in the arse|die in the arse)). The x2 of cmavo is for the function of the word. Saying ''it's a UI'' doesn't tell me what it does. It could say how the speaker feels, or it could make the bridi a question. The ''se cmavo'' should be a description of the function of the cmavo, as the place structure demands. Treating UI as a valid ''se cmavo'' is simply a rejection of the place structure. Calling da'o a UI would make it even stupider. BTW, can you really say ''da'ocai''? - mi'e. ((kreig.daniyl.)) In what sense of 'can'? It is grammatical, if that's what you're asking. It doesn't matter much whether you use the word ''selma'o'' to refer to grammar classes or you use some other word. It is still useful to classify words according to what grammatical structures they're allowed to form. You can use ''xu'' in exactly the same places where you can use ''ui'', that's why they're in the same class, that's all. That's quite independent of their meaning. Even though there is some correlation between meaning and grammar classes, it is not at all absolute. Lojban has way too many grammar classes (usually called ''selma'o''), a lot more than it needs. --mi'e ((xorxes))