Received: from mail-wi0-f191.google.com ([209.85.212.191]:42103) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1WBwn5-0008GE-Kc for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 17:33:20 -0800 Received: by mail-wi0-f191.google.com with SMTP id y8sf112126wiv.18 for ; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 17:33:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=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; bh=RaH6oNEt8XZZCJeeYaQaT+2SVzaeM4jykHYXGUa876M=; b=keCK6luo22h0XX4A8JklakfyQ3K/M68wHKFATlyIkJb6Iba88XKFH/IftDLpLGbaC7 h0+M4FPI8tsx5SW2SaJ/ojEYV1NyQKb4WnsA8Wq0hdjtaPeE8RBklg49TiwKGklG2+Fg mpwXRNc6FxL6Oig4kM3y9xAI0caQPYX6vVaA67b/vFpaU1WrP8pDWU2S2kvq4clfFb41 BGqsRbXBA2pTc0HLdvKePoD0cM5RDKUe/0tJFSEeJeDUYuFmLrhgwdxgoKfZ9dd4DWEx 64Z8frkSdf11BmFFpRz3kA7umYrs2EbcXOqOmX5ivwELL/BtPikr7YDxCUEkQECkHWAF D+sw== X-Received: by 10.180.95.9 with SMTP id dg9mr15912wib.11.1391823179832; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 17:32:59 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.218.130 with SMTP id pg2ls256906wic.31.gmail; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 17:32:59 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.180.198.133 with SMTP id jc5mr1516423wic.4.1391823179133; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 17:32:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-la0-x231.google.com (mail-la0-x231.google.com [2a00:1450:4010:c03::231]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id rk7si901460bkb.2.2014.02.07.17.32.59 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 07 Feb 2014 17:32:59 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of felipeg.assis@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::231 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c03::231; Received: by mail-la0-f49.google.com with SMTP id y1so3212885lam.36 for ; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 17:32:58 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.57.105 with SMTP id h9mr76543lbq.73.1391823178714; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 17:32:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.61.136 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 17:32:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 23:32:58 -0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] [oz] {ny poi cy ke'a falcru} From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Felipe_Gon=E7alves_Assis?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: felipeg.assis@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of felipeg.assis@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::231 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=felipeg.assis@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=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: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133be4e28521b04f1db1629 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 1 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: On 7 February 2014 22:40, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Felipe Gonçalves Assis < > felipeg.assis@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Or perhaps "lo spesi'u ku poi crino". It has always been said that "lo > broda poi brode [ku]" is different from "lo broda ku poi brode". > > "ko'a poi brode" has to be the latter, since the restriction applies to an > already complete sumti. > [...] Content analysis details: (0.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (felipeg.assis[at]gmail.com) 0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED No valid author signature, adsp_override is CUSTOM_MED -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid --001a1133be4e28521b04f1db1629 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 7 February 2014 22:40, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis < > felipeg.assis@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Or perhaps "lo spesi'u ku poi crino". It has always been said that "lo > broda poi brode [ku]" is different from "lo broda ku poi brode". > > "ko'a poi brode" has to be the latter, since the restriction applies to a= n > already complete sumti. > Sure. > > >> But, using the convention from the text, we would read it another way. >> {lo spesi'u} would still, of course, refer to a couple, but then the >> relative clause would act on the reference of {lo spesi'u} to extract a >> part of it that is green, even if it does not form a couple any more. Th= e >> relative clause can, then, create new possibilities of reference. It is >> still restrictive in the sense that it takes a reference and then restri= cts >> it to a part of it. >> > > That's how "poi" works with quantifiers after all. "ci ko'a poi broda" > quantifies over the referents of ko'a restricted to those that satisfy > broda. > > I know about the rule for quantifiers, but it still can be seen as the relative clause adding a statement about the bound variable. It doesn't change the fact that removing the relative clause preserves the truth of a sentence. The parse doesn't help here, by the way. Only now could I come up with this last interpretation. It surely wasn't >> intuitive to me. I will reflect on its consequences. But for now, what d= o >> you think? >> > > But is there any other interpretation even available for "ko'a poi broda"= ? > > {ko'a} and {ny} are bad examples, because their referents are supposed to be clear, and the clue given by the relative clause will be hardly useful, except perhaps to remind the reader or listener. Consider other examples: (1) {ti poi toldi}: At least in the way my mind works, when I point at something, I point at a specific thing; I just need to give a clue to the listener about what I am exactly pointing at. It is not like I am pointing at a bunch of things and selecting a butterfly out of them. (2) {ma'a po'u lo pilno be me'o denpa bu girzu}: When I use a personal pronoun, I have a clear conscience about who I am talking about. Again, I just have to give a clue to the se cusku because the pronoun is too general= . (3) {ra poi danlu}: An alternative to {lo bi'u nai mlatu}. And, finally, if we want to talk about part of the referent, there is always {lo me ko'a}. mu'o mi'e .asiz. --=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. --001a1133be4e28521b04f1db1629 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On 7 February 2014 22:40, Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.co= m> wrote:



O= n Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis &= lt;felipeg.ass= is@gmail.com> wrote:

Or perhaps "lo spesi'u ku poi crino". It has alway= s been said that "lo broda poi brode [ku]" is different from &quo= t;lo broda ku poi brode".

"ko'a poi brode" has to be the latter, si= nce the restriction applies to an already complete sumti.
=

Sure.
=A0
=A0
But, using the convention from the text, we would read it another way. {lo= spesi'u} would still, of course, refer to a couple, but then the relat= ive clause would act on the reference of {lo spesi'u} to extract a part= of it that is green, even if it does not form a couple any more. The relat= ive clause can, then, create new possibilities of reference. It is still re= strictive in the sense that it takes a reference and then restricts it to a= part of it.

That's h= ow "poi" works with quantifiers after all. "ci ko'a poi = broda" quantifies over the referents of ko'a restricted to those t= hat satisfy broda.=A0


I k= now about the rule for quantifiers, but it still can be seen as the relativ= e clause adding a statement about the bound variable. It doesn't change= the fact that removing the relative clause preserves the truth of a senten= ce. The parse doesn't help here, by the way.

Only now could I come up= with this last interpretation. It surely wasn't intuitive to me. I wil= l reflect on its consequences. But for now, what do you think?

But is there= any other interpretation even available for "ko'a poi broda"= ?=A0


{ko'a}= and {ny} are bad examples, because their referents are supposed to be clea= r, and the clue given by the relative clause will be hardly useful, except = perhaps to remind the reader or listener.

Consider other examples:
(1) {ti poi toldi}: At least in the way my = mind works, when I point at something, I point at a specific thing; I just = need to give a clue to the listener about what I am exactly pointing at. It= is not like I am pointing at a bunch of things and selecting a butterfly o= ut of them.

(2) {ma'a po'u lo pilno be me'o denpa bu girzu}: When I use= a personal pronoun, I have a clear conscience about who I am talking about= . Again, I just have to give a clue to the se cusku because the pronoun is = too general.
=A0
(3) {ra poi danlu}: An alternative to {lo bi'u nai mlatu}.
And, finally, if we want to talk about part of the referent, there is alw= ays {lo me ko'a}.

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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.
--001a1133be4e28521b04f1db1629--