Received: from mail-bk0-f62.google.com ([209.85.214.62]:56331) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UJnUr-0003Ao-9f; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:10:22 -0700 Received: by mail-bk0-f62.google.com with SMTP id ik5sf415318bkc.17 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:10:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:received-spf:mime-version :x-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:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=c9eFHaIuQ4V2nyNIT2u6dTadvW0ZCm7n7apvQP/NFQw=; b=v1LpE9spT5KS5jvKgnYl/P4Ew+92fuakUwdRRS6bYVbI8Iuro6VSJx0gMwoYDGG2bk QX4NcH5pCKgl0WNbr0Bv4E16jAZKRuHHiXrgmYBKGyUeEc/0Y3Nd265litWmvm9bXh5A y6dtQi3+qRHpIVV2eHpmQWZFdjArOsiHjj0jYMZe9L413IO8bmo94+PlfgulGg6+Utm0 4dF/G9NVXmw81E4eYT9IR3G04UxL1z9XwTward87CEU7RPA1udOiMKE4dOS49vBTTlvZ 2IMU0sXM0P1t3cdf/bjCFExIl6SZ90BxKOuAuyGFUBMMBYokmCDuq2MT2DFIUYmeIIcA XB1A== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:received-spf:mime-version :x-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:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=c9eFHaIuQ4V2nyNIT2u6dTadvW0ZCm7n7apvQP/NFQw=; b=L3E2B4MC7ePptFBegmelqDQUkJQn7KzgX13GxQWw00pAjG6Jrl9IJRFeFSPQ9dZFlR OsyvtPDtfi6ulmkNKn8AvXOudNoH+oZr1StO9uEs/NquAySzJaZQPwwc8XogiUtzt5zr kimugLbVnj2uLyre/eZCnrwTnauMJpYDMu3kYP8WlN0JbBu7NTuPBKq6hTpMWAqVV2Pm cVORLpEzisfoGfJK8oQLM4c7lUAKS1k4PvBznYAxs8yHBXG1dXwVbxp5tx+20tiDpi8n tgG/W42utzE2/WbcQAJIhtG15hHe8Ph4mve+GpfBuB7Z52E2mNHHF89OXZcBZbingnAf J+7Q== X-Received: by 10.180.183.203 with SMTP id eo11mr710041wic.3.1364141405603; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:10:05 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.78.138 with SMTP id b10ls251759wix.26.gmail; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:10:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.204.198.17 with SMTP id em17mr689880bkb.1.1364141404856; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:10:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-x22a.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c03::22a]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i9si863922bki.2.2013.03.24.09.10.04 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:10:04 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::22a as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c03::22a; Received: by mail-la0-f42.google.com with SMTP id fe20so9991467lab.29 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:10:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.37.129 with SMTP id y1mr4487499lbj.17.1364141404432; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:10:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.75.40 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:10:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <514F1132.8020502@gmx.de> References:

<514F1132.8020502@gmx.de> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 13:10:04 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] what {me lo broda ku} means and why not allow {selbri NOI} From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::22a as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:44 AM, selpa'i wrote: > > Are you saying that {noi} and {poi} would have different uses as > selbri/bridi relative clauses? I can see {poi} being a substitute for > {gi'e}, and {noi} a bridi relative clause, but maybe there are uses for a > {noi}-like gi'e or a restrictive bridi relative clause. "noi" and "poi" already have different logics with sumti, so yes, they would also work differently with selbri. The home ground of "poi" is for determining the domain of quantification of a quantifier: "Q da poi ke'a broda" marks the set that satisfies broda as the domain of quantification for Q. But a domain of quantification can also be indicated directly with a sumti: "Q ko'a", so that the referents of ko'a constitute the domain in that case. And a third way of doing it is to mix both methods: "Q ko'a poi broda", in which case the domain of quantification is the intersection between the set of referents of "ko'a" and the set that satisfies "broda". The sumti method of specifying the domain of quantification can be reduced to the poi-method: "Q da poi me ko'a", and similarly the mixed method to: "Q da poi me ko'a gi'e broda". So, yes, "poi", when combined with something other than a pure variable, is essentially "gi'e". But "noi" is quite different. "Q da noi broda" makes very little sense. A noi-clause can always be removed from the sentence in which it appears and the meaning of what remains is not affected. The only connection the noi-clause has with the sumti it attaches to is that it picks the referents of that sumti to make an additional comment about them. That's why it makes little sense when attached to a syntactic sumti that has no referents. But we may want to make additional comments about the selbri or about the whole bridi too. > The problem I see with {broda NOI brode} is that it messes with constructs > like {lo broda NOI brode}. If NOI can attach to selbri, then there is no > longer a way to put NOI inside the LE description (e.g. "lo broda noi brode > [ku'o] [ku]}, which makes a difference when outer quantifiers are present. True, but noi doesn't make much sense in combination with quantifiers anyway. We would also need to allow it after "vau", so we can say things like: do pu citka lo plise vau noi do pu nupre lo nu do na ba co'e You ate the apples, which you had promised you wouldn't do. >> do sanga noi mi na co'e >> You sing, which I don't. >> >> do sanga noi ro da djica lo nu da co'e >> You sing, which everybody wants to do. > > Wouldn't {no'a} work? > > do sanga noi mi na no'a > You sing, which I do not. Yes, but for the second one "no'a" would get "djica" instead of "sanga". mu'o mi'e xorxes -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.