WikiDiscuss

---

> goi unifies its two arguments so that they refer to the same thing. If one is
> defined and the other isn't, the undefined one gets the meaning of the
> defined one. If both are undefined, they are linked to refer to the same
> undefined thing, which may be assigned later. If both are defined, using goi
> is an error.

I assume {ko'a goi le prenu} is equivalent to {le prenu ku goi ko'a}.
Are {le prenu goi ko'a ku} and {le goi ko'a prenu ku} also equivalent
to the first two?

I assume that in {ci le mu prenu goi ko'a ku} and in
{ci le goi ko'a mu prenu ku}, {ko'a} gets assigned {le mu prenu ku}.

What happens with {ko'a goi ci le mu prenu} and {ci le mu prenu ku
goi ko'a}? Presumably ko'a gets assigned the three people which
fulfill whatever will be claimed about them?

What if the assignment occurs under the scope of another quantifier?

ro le ze gerku cu batci ci le mu prenu ku goi ko'a
"Each of the seven dogs bites three of the five people, from now on ko'a"

If we use ko'a in the next sentence, does this force an interpretation
on the first sentence that every dog bit the same three people? Or does
ko'a refer to all of the five people that were bitten, even if there's
more than three in all?

Is {ko'a goi no le mu prenu} at all meaningful?

Does {su'eci le mu prenu ku goi ko'a} force existential import
into {su'eci} ("at most three")?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail