From bpfk-list+bncCMHEmaCOBhDOxOjlBBoEvaDXqg@googlegroups.com Sat Oct 16 15:08:29 2010 Received: from mail-yw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.213.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P7EvR-0007EU-Vl; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:08:29 -0700 Received: by ywo7 with SMTP id 7sf1079527ywo.16 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:08:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=EyLOTeFdfBVF7QT4PRp/fAwfU5Z+KabZWN57gvUkaWE=; b=gks1OhEbLXtFMqevh+NtnLAb5LGmQ1D2loviRcTxN2UBhk01VViHJW9O2xSUSJALcw haZF4Oq58w9BjVVY2f+/dlfSSk9qkmHKgZabFFfcMAkaKKM8lPUoqnbTZxNSp4Gqn2d6 Rm2KcDc26yE5KRPR82BceogLcGntU8qnLlDAc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=nXqeNS+ExDip/EA2sqQHHf9bb4u5dqfzTwNIBTPDsTUnHRlCljI9Ozl7IW0z1WggSW fiNX2bUdBmSdRdy8V2JycHBhXgWquI3txMQCvRDmpXiaAO0nt5NBQWPe+hntingpvF6y BXX9LwMjixQ06Arkb2whXGXciKVZ/UdIpS5Rk= Received: by 10.101.36.13 with SMTP id o13mr44648anj.65.1287266894268; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:08:14 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.123.203 with SMTP id q11ls3067762ibr.2.p; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:08:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.35.77 with SMTP id o13mr943256ibd.3.1287266893956; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:08:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.35.77 with SMTP id o13mr943255ibd.3.1287266893902; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:08:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iw0-f169.google.com (mail-iw0-f169.google.com [209.85.214.169]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id bm7si8707894ibb.2.2010.10.16.15.08.12; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:08:12 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.169 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.169; Received: by mail-iw0-f169.google.com with SMTP id 1so2983070iwn.14 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:08:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.35.11 with SMTP id n11mr1889034ibd.168.1287266892446; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:08:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.208.15 with HTTP; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:08:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4CB97A01.9040007@gmail.com> References: <70c95ba0-9cc9-4639-8e30-5e486d25cf2b@q3g2000pra.googlegroups.com> <9572835c-55f6-4644-be9b-dd9601570d8d@m35g2000prc.googlegroups.com> <4CB90A9A.3050302@gmail.com> <4CB97A01.9040007@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 16:08:12 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpfk] Re: O HAI I FIXT UR LODGEBANZ From: Jonathan Jones To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: eyeonus@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.169 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=eyeonus@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000325576e32dafe640492c32d62 --000325576e32dafe640492c32d62 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 4:10 AM, And Rosta wrote: > Jonathan Jones, On 16/10/2010 03:58: > >> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 8:14 PM, And Rosta > and.rosta@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> John Cowan, On 15/10/2010 23:09: >> >> 2010/10/15 Jorge Llamb=EDas> jjllambias@gmail.com>>: >> >> >> OK. I think my issue in the case of Lojban is that quantifier= s >> need to >> be fronted for them to have scope over the matrix, whereas >> questions >> have matrix scope without being fronted. I find it somewhat >> dissonant. >> >> >> Quantifiers are just arguments, whereas questions are jufra-level >> modifiers that change the overall illocutionary force. They >> shouldn't >> be compared. >> >> >> In my (unpublished) analysis of English interrogatives (which owes a >> large debt to xorxes), subordinate interrogatives (aka indirect question= s, >> e.g. _wonder who_) involve a 'WH complementizer' (same word class as _th= at_) >> that binds a variable. In main clause interrogatives, the WH complementi= zer >> is complement of an illocutionary operator that means "I-hereby-enquire"= . So >> e.g. _Who came?_ is syntactically "I-hereby-enquire that(WH)_x it_x (x i= s a >> person) came". I recognize that this exposition is 99% incomprehensible,= but >> the point is that there are logically three ingredients, the relationshi= p >> between two of them involves variable binding, so is very like quantifie= rs, >> and the illocutionary ingredient is not really the core ingredient (sinc= e it >> is present only in main clause interrogatives). >> >> How does Lojban distinguishthe following? >> "I know who she knows that he likes"=3D "I know that(WH)x she knows t= hat >> he likes x" >> "I know that she knows who he likes"? =3D "I know that she knows >> that(WH)x he likes x" >> -- these differ wrt the scope of the WH complementizer. >> >> --And. >> >> >> Can someone put that in layman, please? That entire post is completely >> beyond me. >> > > The underlying logic of Q+kau type interrogatives involves a du'u-type > element that binds a variable within the du'u clause: > > > "I know who she knows that he likes"=3D "I know that(WH)x she knows that = he > likes x" > "I know that she knows who he likes"? =3D "I know that she knows that(WH)= x he > likes x" > where "that(WH)x" is the du'u-type element that binds the variable x. > > Interrogatives that have the illocutionary force of actual questions -- > i.e. sentences that ask questions -- have an additional element expressin= g > the act of question asking. The question "Who came?" is underlyingly > "I-hereby-ask-you who came", or rather "I-hereby-ask-you that(WH)x x came= ". > > The relevance of these remarks to the present thread is firstly that I > think xorxes was right and John was wrong, and secondly that the pair of > "knows...likes" sentences above demonstrate the need for Lojban to be abl= e > to indicate the scope of the interrogative. > > > --And. > Thank you. I think I understand now. The whole "that(WH)x" construct is a bit confusing. It looks to me like a function, but being a math geek, not a linguistics geek, I can't be sure, and have no idea what the function is if I'm right, thus causing me vast amounts of consternation. --=20 mu'o mi'e .aionys. .i.a'o.e'e ko cmima le bende pe lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu d= o zo'o (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= BPFK" group. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googleg= roups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-l= ist?hl=3Den. --000325576e32dafe640492c32d62 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 4:10 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com= > wrote:
Jonathan Jones, On 16/10/2010 03:58:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 8:14 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com <mailto:and.rosta@gmail.com>&g= t; wrote:

=A0 =A0John Cowan, On 15/10/2010 23:09:

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A02010/10/15 Jorge Llamb=EDas<jjllambias@gmail.com <mailto:jjllambias@gmail.com= >>:


=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0OK. I think my issue in the case of Lojban is that = quantifiers need to
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0be fronted for them to have scope over the matrix, = whereas questions
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0have matrix scope without being fronted. I find it = somewhat dissonant.


=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Quantifiers are just arguments, whereas questions are jufra= -level
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0modifiers that change the overall illocutionary force. =A0T= hey shouldn't
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0be compared.


=A0 =A0In my (unpublished) analysis of English interrogatives (which owes = a large debt to xorxes), subordinate interrogatives (aka indirect questions= , e.g. _wonder who_) involve a 'WH complementizer' (same word class= as _that_) that binds a variable. In main clause interrogatives, the WH co= mplementizer is complement of an illocutionary operator that means "I-= hereby-enquire". So e.g. _Who came?_ is syntactically "I-hereby-e= nquire that(WH)_x it_x (x is a person) came". I recognize that this ex= position is 99% incomprehensible, but the point is that there are logically= three ingredients, the relationship between two of them involves variable = binding, so is very like quantifiers, and the illocutionary ingredient is n= ot really the core ingredient (since it is present only in main clause inte= rrogatives).

=A0 =A0How does Lojban distinguishthe following?
=A0 =A0"I know who she knows that he likes"=3D "I know that= (WH)x she knows that he likes x"
=A0 =A0"I know that she knows who he likes"? =3D "I know th= at she knows that(WH)x he likes x"
=A0 =A0-- these differ wrt the scope of the WH complementizer.

=A0 =A0--And.


Can someone put that in layman, please? That entire post is completely beyo= nd me.

The underlying logic of Q+kau type interrogatives involves a du'u-type = element that binds a variable within the du'u clause:
=

"I know who she knows that he likes"=3D "I know that(WH)x sh= e knows that he likes x"
"I know that she knows who he likes"? =3D "I know that she k= nows that(WH)x he likes x"
where "that(WH)x" is the du'u-type element that binds the var= iable x.

Interrogatives that have the illocutionary force of actual questions -- i.e= . sentences that ask questions -- have an additional element expressing the= act of question asking. The question "Who came?" is underlyingly= "I-hereby-ask-you who came", or rather "I-hereby-ask-you th= at(WH)x x came".

The relevance of these remarks to the present thread is firstly that I thin= k xorxes was right and John was wrong, and secondly that the pair of "= knows...likes" sentences above demonstrate the need for Lojban to be a= ble to indicate the scope of the interrogative.


--And.

Thank you. I think I understand now.
=
The whole "that(WH)x" construct is a bit confusing. It looks = to me like a function, but being a math geek, not a linguistics geek, I can= 't be sure, and have no idea what the function is if I'm right, thu= s causing me vast amounts of consternation.

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.a'o.e'e ko cmima le= bende pe lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to= the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= BPFK" group.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googleg= roups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-l= ist?hl=3Den.
--000325576e32dafe640492c32d62--