Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 06:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: la arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <6035ac71-4afd-48f6-9223-49cc81b983d9@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ8VDXC4BtasPubD2sgGwJmvUhoq=WVL1iqYVkkA1Mjy=EsVg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3729f7bd-3aa6-499c-9a20-4b3d040d3ad8@googlegroups.com>
 <CA+gZtg+Z5G30sNjBiOtOxFwE5Js=4uwM3T9Sd2MftKHxjoG88Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOQ8VDVOxKYbUoRCPDoLPpMxxWFobVQ=j0wStj=JDobXzwYS_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <b22c720e-ccb3-43af-ad2c-0db522e5844a@googlegroups.com> <CAOQ8VDWvOUw7r2RFOhuLmF0cssAE5LEUUKJ1QtJOUBsKzroi9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <fe420003-35a6-45b3-a9cd-e2c428b979ea@googlegroups.com> <CAKOEKkQtSd+TpVhgbx4tWQCrmfOfOUMRkxS=j_rpeLcv0WSOxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOQ8VDXC4BtasPubD2sgGwJmvUhoq=WVL1iqYVkkA1Mjy=EsVg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] A bug in the CLL 7.6 example 6.14).
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_161_26395862.1371995000062"
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_161_26395862.1371995000062
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Friday, June 21, 2013 12:04:27 AM UTC+4, tsani wrote:
>
> On 20 June 2013 11:58, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com<javascript:=
>
> > wrote:
>
>>   I believe in in none of those cases does nei or no'a "work".  I don't=
=20
>> consider that sei-se'u constructions can "see" the sentence they are=20
>> talking about it.  It would make about as much sense as:
>> lo mamta cusku lu vo'a nitcu lo nu klama lo zarci li'u=20
>> and claiming that "vo'a" refers to "lo mamta" (contrariwise, "lo mamta=
=20
>> cusku lo se du'u  vo'a nitcu lo nu klama lo zarci" does work)
>>               --gejyspa
>>
>>
>>
> CLL 19:12 contradicts you on this point:
>
> Since a discursive utterance is working at a =93higher=94 level of abstra=
ction=20
> than a non-discursive utterance, a non-discursive utterance cannot refer =
to=20
> a discursive utterance. Specifically, the various back-counting,=20
> reciprocal, and reflexive constructs in selma'o KOhA ignore the utterance=
s=20
> at =93higher=94 metalinguistic levels in determining their referent. It i=
s=20
> possible, and sometimes necessary, to refer to lower metalinguistic level=
s.=20
> For example, the English =93he said=94 in a conversation is metalinguisti=
c. For=20
> this purpose, quotations are considered to be at a lower metalinguistic=
=20
> level than the surrounding context (a quoted text cannot refer to the=20
> statements of the one who quotes it), whereas parenthetical remarks are=
=20
> considered to be at a higher level than the context.
>
> Thus, it is possible from within a "higher" context to refer to the=20
> contents of a "lower" context. This is why it is possible to refer to the=
=20
> contents of a lu-quote, but not for its contents to refer to the bridi in=
=20
> which that lu-quote is a sumti. Likewise, a sei-clause can use ri and oth=
er=20
> anaphoric devices to refer to what is outside it, because what is outside=
=20
> it is on a "lower" level.
>
> Metalinguistic "height" according to CLL:
> SEI..SEhU, TO..TOI > ordinary bridi > lu-quotes
>

Oh, nice diagram.
I have a question. What about {fi'o}  (which is (or at least supposed to=20
be) bridi relative clause) ?

{mi xusra lo du'u do melbi i go'i}.  Here go'i states that {mi xusra lo=20
du'u li'o}

I guess in
{fi'o xusra mi do melbi i go'i} go'i incoroprates {fi'o xusra mi} as well.

If we are to create a bridi relative clause (like e.g. {so'o'oi} in selmaho=
=20
SEI) it should also incorporates such "comments" as {so'o'oi mi xusra se'u}=
.

Next. I guess in=20
{sei mi xusra  do melbi i go'i} go'i states that "you're beautiful", but=20
not that "I assert that you are beautiful".

Am I right?


> That being said, I say that {nei} used in a sei-clause refers to the brid=
i=20
> of the sei-clause. This is consistent with (almost) every other use of ne=
i.=20
> To refer to the bridi outside the sei-clause {no'a} is required.
>
> .i mi'e la tsnai mu'o
>

--=20
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 e=
mail 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


------=_Part_161_26395862.1371995000062
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<br><br>On Friday, June 21, 2013 12:04:27 AM UTC+4, tsani wrote:<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">On 20 June 2013 11:58, M=
ichael Turniansky <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"javascript:" target=3D"_=
blank" gdf-obfuscated-mailto=3D"1jtUHcajzkYJ">mturn...@gmail.com</a>&gt;</s=
pan> wrote:<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 dir=3D"ltr">&nbsp; I believe in in none of those case=
s does nei or no'a "work". &nbsp;I don't consider that sei-se'u constructio=
ns can "see" the sentence they are talking about it. &nbsp;It would make ab=
out as much sense as:<div>


lo mamta cusku lu vo'a nitcu lo nu klama lo zarci li'u&nbsp;</div><div>and =
claiming that "vo'a" refers to "lo mamta" (contrariwise, "lo mamta cusku lo=
 se du'u &nbsp;vo'a nitcu lo nu klama lo zarci" does work)</div>


<div>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; --gejyspa</div><div><=
br></div></div><div><div><div><br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br><=
/div><div>CLL 19:12 contradicts you on this point:</div><div><br>

</div><div><span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size=
:medium;text-indent:16px">Since a discursive utterance is working at a =93h=
igher=94 level of abstraction than a non-discursive utterance, a non-discur=
sive utterance cannot refer to a discursive utterance. Specifically, the va=
rious back-counting, reciprocal, and reflexive constructs in selma'o KOhA i=
gnore the utterances at =93higher=94 metalinguistic levels in determining t=
heir referent. It is possible, and sometimes necessary, to refer to lower m=
etalinguistic levels. For example, the English =93he said=94 in a conversat=
ion is metalinguistic. For this purpose, quotations are considered to be at=
 a lower metalinguistic level than the surrounding context (a quoted text c=
annot refer to the statements of the one who quotes it), whereas parentheti=
cal remarks are considered to be at a higher level than the context.</span>=
</div>

<div><br></div><div>Thus, it is possible from within a "higher" context to =
refer to the contents of a "lower" context. This is why it is possible to r=
efer to the contents of a lu-quote, but not for its contents to refer to th=
e bridi in which that lu-quote is a sumti. Likewise, a sei-clause can use r=
i and other anaphoric devices to refer to what is outside it, because what =
is outside it is on a "lower" level.</div>

<div><br></div><div>Metalinguistic "height" according to CLL:<br>SEI..SEhU,=
 TO..TOI &gt; ordinary bridi &gt; lu-quotes</div></div></div></div></blockq=
uote><div><br></div><div>Oh, nice diagram.</div><div>I have a question. Wha=
t about {fi'o} &nbsp;(which is (or at least supposed to be) bridi relative =
clause) ?</div><div><br></div><div>{mi xusra lo du'u do melbi i go'i}. &nbs=
p;Here go'i states that {mi xusra lo du'u li'o}</div><div><br></div><div>I =
guess in</div><div>{fi'o xusra mi do melbi i go'i} go'i incoroprates {fi'o =
xusra mi} as well.</div><div><br></div><div>If we are to create a bridi rel=
ative clause (like e.g. {so'o'oi} in selmaho SEI) it should also incorporat=
es such "comments" as {so'o'oi mi xusra se'u}.</div><div><br></div><div>Nex=
t. I guess in&nbsp;</div><div>{sei mi xusra &nbsp;do melbi i go'i} go'i sta=
tes that "you're beautiful", but not that "I assert that you are beautiful"=
.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Am I right?</div><div><br></div><div><br></d=
iv><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><div =
class=3D"gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>That being said, I say that {nei}=
 used in a sei-clause refers to the bridi of the sei-clause. This is consis=
tent with (almost) every other use of nei. To refer to the bridi outside th=
e sei-clause {no'a} is required.</div>

<div><br></div><div>.i mi'e la tsnai mu'o</div></div></div></div>
</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">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</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_161_26395862.1371995000062--