Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 07:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: la gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <4072ef63-cd96-45d0-8bb9-939ca5dd49ba@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ8VDUUtRFY6=WRsF9HZwUip+Mg4aE16OhYevoGRmJjx4b2JQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c405419b-2224-43ad-af13-cbc87e4dd8c9@googlegroups.com> <7a66a7f2-4f60-434f-82e5-8de0f47c6e90@googlegroups.com>
 <CAOQ8VDUUtRFY6=WRsF9HZwUip+Mg4aE16OhYevoGRmJjx4b2JQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: what {me lo broda ku} means and why not allow
 {selbri NOI}
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_68_19215682.1365172931852"
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_68_19215682.1365172931852
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1


On Friday, April 5, 2013 5:18:48 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote:
>
> On 4 April 2013 12:24, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com <javascript:>>wrote:
>
>> However, "You sing, which I didn't know" just implies that {lo nu ...} in 
>> the beginning was dropped. But NOI  states that there is a terminator of 
>> that {lo nu}.
>> The can only allow dropping articles when it doesn't lead to ambiguity 
>> like
>> {broda cu brode} definitely means {lo broda ku brode} and
>> {do sanga noi mi na pu djuno} means {co'e lo du'u do sanga ku noi mi na 
>> pu djuno ke'a}.
>>  
>>
> Or we can resort to the panoply of other methods that exist to add on 
> bridi-related comments in afterthought, such as sei or, simply, another 
> sentence.
> e.g. .i do sanga sei mi na djuno
> e.g. .i do sanga .i la'e di'u mi na se djuno
>
> Adding NOI to selbri breaks much existing usage (not that I'm opposed to 
> breaking usage, but some are) and it has a handful of distinct possible 
> interpretations.
>
> 1) Reusing the selbri and making another sentence out of that selbri.
> To realize this interpretation, we'd need to either ratify no'oi, po'oi, 
> and me'au or introduce a GOhA that is a sort of selbri-ke'a.
>
> Let go'ai be the selbri-ke'a:
> e.g. .i do mi cinba noi lo mi bruna lo by. pampe'o cu go'ai
> "You kiss me, which my brother does to his girlfriend."
>
> With latro'a's and my experimental cmavo, that becomes:
>
> .i do mi cinba no'oi lo mi bruna lo by. pampe'o cu me'au ke'a
> "You kiss me, which my brother does to his girlfriend."
>
> Using ke'a to represent the infinitive of the bridi (i.e. the pure selbri) 
> make it possible to use it as an argument of another selbri expecting an 
> infinitive, such as zdile or pluka:
>
> e.g. .i do mi cinba no'oi ke'a pluka mi
> "You kiss me, which pleases me."
>
> This makes it much the same as a sei construct. 
> Let ke'a be bound the vague abstraction of the containing bridi:
> e.g. .i do mi cinba sei ke'a mi pluka
> "You kiss me -- that pleases me."
>
> The annoying thing about sei is that it only supports a degenerate 
> bridi-tail, and all the formal sumti must thus appear in the bridi head. 
> Using no'oi/po'oi doesn't have this restriction. On the other hand, sei can 
> appear anywhere, whereas no'oi/po'oi must appear after the selbri. Both 
> have their pros and cons.
>

That's the point. they both have pros and cons so i like both solutions.


> Finally, po'oi can be used to restrict bu'a-series selbri-variables and 
> {mo}:
>
> e.g. .i do mo po'oi na'e fadni
> "What're you doing that isn't typical?"
>
> e.g. .i lo mi bruna lo mi mensi cu bu'a po'oi mi ji'a me'au ke'a by .e my
> "My brother and sister are related in some way whereby I too am related to 
> both of them."
>
> 2) Simply create an ordinary sumti relative clause with ke'a bound to "lo 
> su'u <the bridi>". 
>

In some cases it's be {lo} , not {losu'u}. e.g. if {lo broda} is e.g. {lo 
fatci} i.e. contains an abstraction place. so yeah, the rule wouldn't be 
that simple.

In my honest opinion, having selbri-NOI have this interpretation is 
> counterintuitive. The problem is that we're considering too-simple cases so 
> we don't realize how silly selbri-noi having this feature would be. It 
> would be more useful to allow {vau NOI} to have this feature.
>
> e.g. .i do tcidu lo se cukta vau noi ke'a se mukti lo nu tolzdi
> "You read a book, which is motivated by your being bored."
> (This is mostly redundant to fi'o and sei constructs
>

if we can resort to fewer words in the language then it has the advantage 
of speaking a style that is simpler for beginners due to the reduced 
vocabulary.

, so it's pretty useless, really, and it breaks some usage.)
>
> If we were to let selbri-NOI have this feature, all the sumti would be 
> required to be in the bridi-head. All this really does is make a handful of 
> naive natlang->lojban glosses correct.
>
> 3) A "freer" version of gi'e.
>
> "This is the house that I used to live in." "This is the dog that I take 
> care of." "This is my friend whom I've known for a long time." What do 
> these all have in common? Nouns. This interpretation has ke'a bind to the 
> x1 of the main bridi, which is basically gi'e's domain. Again, this 
> basically just makes a bunch of naive glosses correct. The only real 
> advantage is that the ke'a can be nested deeply. Really though, this can be 
> achieved with me'au lo ka + a deeply nested ce'u.
>
> e.g. .i ta mi pendo poi ze'u ba'o slabu
> "That's my friend whom I've known for a long time."
>
> e.g. .i ta zdani poi mi pu zu citka lo cirla ne'i ke'a
> "That's the house in which I ate cheese long ago."
>

technically {zdani} is not "house" but rather "to be a home"/"to home 
yourself" (stupid translation, I know)
nouns are to be translated as {me LE broda}.


> Those two are easily redundant to the following that use gi'e instead:
>
> .i ta pendo mi gi'e ze'u ba'e slabu
> "That's my friend and I've known them for a long time."
>
> .i ta zdani gi'e pu zu jai ne'i te citka lo cirla mi
> "That's a house and the place in which I ate cheese long ago."
>
>  (The second was reasonably more complex.)
>
> For more complex cases still, where the ke'a is deeply nested, using gi'e 
> becomes impossible, lest jai be thoroughly (ab)used.
>
> .i li vo li re su'i re du noi mi vedli lo li'i mi cilre lo du'u li bi vu'u 
> vo lo'o ji'a ke'a du kei ca lo nu mi jai nanca ke'a
> [I can't produce a reasonable English translation for a reason I give a 
> bit later.]
>
> Using jai and gi'e, this becomes:
>
> .i li vo du li re su'i re gi'e jai se vedli mi fai lo ka ko'a ce'ai mi 
> cilre lo du'u li bi vu'u vo lo'o ji'a ko'a du kei ca lo nu mi jai nanca ko'a
>
> Using me'au + lo ka, it becomes:
>
> .i li vo du li re su'i re gi'e me'au lo ka ko'a ce'ai mi vedli lo li'i mi 
> cilre lo du'u li bi vu'u vo lo'o ji'a ko'a du kei ca lo nu mi jai nanca ko'a
>
> Regardless of these transformations, I have to admit that using selbri-NOI 
> like this is *weird* in cases where the selbri isn't a noun-type selbri 
> (having a definition of {x1 is a <something> ...}).
>
> In sum, interpretation one has already been realized with experimental 
> cmavo by latro'a and me, interpretation two is redundant to sei- and 
> fi'o-clauses as well as TAG sentence connectives, and interpretation three 
> is just plain silly, and typically redundant to clever gi'e constructs. I 
> thus strongly disapprove of extending the grammar of NOI to handle any of 
> these interpretations as they simply aren't useful enough. All they really 
> do is make a certain number of naive assumptions about relative clauses 
> true. The most common type of these naive glosses are of the third 
> interpretation and are simply malgli, in my opinion. The speaker simply has 
> to get used to using gi'e or making more than one sentence when nesting 
> becomes a problem.
>

.o'u su'oroiku to u'i toi so'a lo jbocre cu tugni simxu
 

>

-- 
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.


------=_Part_68_19215682.1365172931852
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<br><br>On Friday, April 5, 2013 5:18:48 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote:<blockquote =
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr">On 4 April 2013 12:24, la=
 gleki <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"javascript:" target=3D"_blank" gdf-=
obfuscated-mailto=3D"yA4U2qTsykwJ">gleki.is...@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wro=
te:<br><div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">

<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;p=
adding-left:1ex"><div><span style=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34)">However, "You sin=
g, which I didn't know" just implies that {lo nu ...} in the beginning was =
dropped. But NOI &nbsp;states that there is a terminator of that {lo nu}.</=
span><br>

</div><div>The can only allow dropping articles when it doesn't lead to amb=
iguity like</div><div>{broda cu brode} definitely means {lo broda ku brode}=
 and</div><div>{do sanga noi mi na pu djuno} means {co'e lo du'u do sanga k=
u noi mi na pu djuno ke'a}.</div>

<div><div>

<p></p></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div><div>Or we can resort to th=
e panoply of other methods that exist to add on bridi-related comments in a=
fterthought, such as sei or, simply, another sentence.</div>

<div>e.g. .i do sanga sei mi na djuno</div><div>e.g. .i do sanga .i la'e di=
'u mi na se djuno</div><div><br></div><div>

Adding NOI to selbri breaks much existing usage (not that I'm opposed to br=
eaking usage, but some are) and it has a handful of distinct possible inter=
pretations.</div><div><br></div><div>

1) Reusing the selbri and making another sentence out of that selbri.</div>=
<div>To realize this interpretation, we'd need to either ratify no'oi, po'o=
i, and me'au or introduce a GOhA that is a sort of selbri-ke'a.</div>

<div><br></div><div>Let go'ai be the selbri-ke'a:</div><div>e.g. .i do mi c=
inba noi lo mi bruna lo by. pampe'o cu go'ai</div><div>

"You kiss me, which my brother does to his girlfriend."<br></div><div><br><=
/div><div>With latro'a's and my experimental cmavo, that becomes:</div><div=
>

<br></div><div>.i do mi cinba no'oi lo mi bruna lo by. pampe'o cu me'au ke'=
a</div><div>"You kiss me, which my brother does to his girlfriend."</div>

<div><br></div><div>Using ke'a to represent the infinitive of the bridi (i.=
e. the pure selbri) make it possible to use it as an argument of another se=
lbri expecting an infinitive, such as zdile or pluka:</div>

<div><br></div><div>e.g. .i do mi cinba no'oi ke'a pluka mi</div><div>"You =
kiss me, which pleases me."</div><div>

<br></div><div>This makes it much the same as a sei construct.&nbsp;</div><=
div>Let ke'a be bound the vague abstraction of the containing bridi:</div><=
div>

e.g. .i do mi cinba sei ke'a mi pluka</div><div>"You kiss me -- that please=
s me."</div><div><br></div><div>The annoying thing about sei is that it onl=
y supports a degenerate bridi-tail, and all the formal sumti must thus appe=
ar in the bridi head. Using no'oi/po'oi doesn't have this restriction. On t=
he other hand, sei can appear anywhere, whereas no'oi/po'oi must appear aft=
er the selbri. Both have their pros and cons.</div></div></blockquote><div>=
<br></div><div>That's the point. they both have pros and cons so i like bot=
h solutions.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D=
"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex=
;"><div dir=3D"ltr">

<div><br></div><div>Finally, po'oi can be used to restrict bu'a-series selb=
ri-variables and {mo}:</div><div><br></div><div>

e.g. .i do mo po'oi na'e fadni</div><div>"What're you doing that isn't typi=
cal?"</div><div><br></div><div>e.g. .i lo mi bruna lo mi mensi cu bu'a po'o=
i mi ji'a me'au ke'a by .e my</div>

<div>"My brother and sister are related in some way whereby I too am relate=
d to both of them."</div><div><br></div><div>2) Simply create an ordinary s=
umti relative clause with ke'a bound to "lo su'u &lt;the bridi&gt;".&nbsp;<=
/div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>In some cases it's be {lo} , no=
t {losu'u}. e.g. if {lo broda} is e.g. {lo fatci} i.e. contains an abstract=
ion place. so yeah, the rule wouldn't be that simple.</div><div><br></div><=
blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;bord=
er-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr">

<div>In my honest opinion, having selbri-NOI have this interpretation is co=
unterintuitive. The problem is that we're considering too-simple cases so w=
e don't realize how silly selbri-noi having this feature would be. It would=
 be more useful to allow {vau NOI} to have this feature.</div>

<div><br></div><div>e.g. .i do tcidu lo se cukta vau noi ke'a se mukti lo n=
u tolzdi</div><div>"You read a book, which is motivated by your being bored=
."</div>

<div>(This is mostly redundant to fi'o and sei constructs</div></div></bloc=
kquote><div><br></div><div>if we can resort to fewer words in the language =
then it has the advantage of speaking a style that is simpler for beginners=
 due to the reduced vocabulary.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gm=
ail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc soli=
d;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>, so it's pretty useless, reall=
y, and it breaks some usage.)</div><div><br></div><div>

If we were to let selbri-NOI have this feature, all the sumti would be requ=
ired to be in the bridi-head. All this really does is make a handful of nai=
ve natlang-&gt;lojban glosses correct.</div><div>

<br></div><div>3) A "freer" version of gi'e.</div><div><br></div><div>"This=
 is the house that I used to live in." "This is the dog that I take care of=
." "This is my friend whom I've known for a long time." What do these all h=
ave in common? Nouns. This interpretation has ke'a bind to the x1 of the ma=
in bridi, which is basically gi'e's domain. Again, this basically just make=
s a bunch of naive glosses correct. The only real advantage is that the ke'=
a can be nested deeply. Really though, this can be achieved with me'au lo k=
a + a deeply nested ce'u.</div>

<div><br></div><div>e.g. .i ta mi pendo poi ze'u ba'o slabu</div><div>"That=
's my friend whom I've known for a long time."</div>

<div><br></div><div>e.g. .i ta zdani poi mi pu zu citka lo cirla ne'i ke'a<=
/div><div>"That's the house in which I ate cheese long ago."</div></div></b=
lockquote><div><br></div><div>technically {zdani} is not "house" but rather=
 "to be a home"/"to home yourself" (stupid translation, I know)</div><div>n=
ouns are to be translated as {me LE broda}.</div><div><br></div><blockquote=
 class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1=
px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr">

<div><br></div><div>Those two are easily redundant to the following that us=
e gi'e instead:</div><div><br></div><div>

.i ta pendo mi gi'e ze'u ba'e slabu</div><div>"That's my friend and I've kn=
own them for a long time."</div><div><br></div><div>

.i ta zdani gi'e pu zu jai ne'i te citka lo cirla mi</div><div>"That's a ho=
use and the place in which I ate cheese long ago."</div><div><br></div>
<div>
(The second was reasonably more complex.)</div><div><br></div><div>For more=
 complex cases still, where the ke'a is deeply nested, using gi'e becomes i=
mpossible, lest jai be thoroughly (ab)used.</div>

<div><br></div><div>.i li vo li re su'i re du noi mi vedli lo li'i mi cilre=
 lo du'u li bi vu'u vo lo'o ji'a ke'a du kei ca lo nu mi jai nanca ke'a</di=
v>

<div>[I can't produce a reasonable English translation for a reason I give =
a bit later.]</div><div><br></div><div>Using jai and gi'e, this becomes:</d=
iv>

<div><br></div><div>.i li vo du li re su'i re gi'e jai se vedli mi fai lo k=
a ko'a ce'ai mi cilre lo du'u li bi vu'u vo lo'o ji'a ko'a du kei ca lo nu =
mi jai nanca ko'a</div>

<div><br></div><div>Using me'au + lo ka, it becomes:</div><div><br></div><d=
iv>.i li vo du li re su'i re gi'e me'au lo ka ko'a ce'ai mi vedli lo li'i m=
i cilre lo du'u li bi vu'u vo lo'o ji'a ko'a du kei ca lo nu mi jai nanca k=
o'a</div>

<div><br></div><div>Regardless of these transformations, I have to admit th=
at using selbri-NOI like this is *weird* in cases where the selbri isn't a =
noun-type selbri (having a definition of {x1 is a &lt;something&gt; ...}).<=
/div>

<div><br></div><div>In sum, interpretation one has already been realized wi=
th experimental cmavo by latro'a and me, interpretation two is redundant to=
 sei- and fi'o-clauses as well as TAG sentence connectives, and interpretat=
ion three is just plain silly, and typically redundant to clever gi'e const=
ructs. I thus strongly disapprove of extending the grammar of NOI to handle=
 any of these interpretations as they simply aren't useful enough. All they=
 really do is make a certain number of naive assumptions about relative cla=
uses true. The most common type of these naive glosses are of the third int=
erpretation and are simply malgli, in my opinion. The speaker simply has to=
 get used to using gi'e or making more than one sentence when nesting becom=
es a problem.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>.o'u su'oroiku to=
 u'i toi so'a lo jbocre cu tugni simxu</div><div>&nbsp;</div><blockquote cl=
ass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px =
#ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">
</blockquote>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3De=
n">http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;<br />

------=_Part_68_19215682.1365172931852--