Received: from mail-la0-f63.google.com ([209.85.215.63]:40339) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1WBxke-0008W8-AX for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 18:34:49 -0800 Received: by mail-la0-f63.google.com with SMTP id y1sf254442lam.18 for ; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 18:34:30 -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=aa+dRgAcgfMQnaVzqjqkAJQn0a2/fMGQa11GxT1GbX8=; b=oIoLMTBalYnilwhz3+tr2jBQ1ZD/66yExqIyQBDyVgmVdtWXilmVLVdgX4p521S8di /PAp9saVGsdk0II66MsuKyFFbG6pBKDiGAbvApVLj8mp9Xh43sQuwjoJDQ784bkG4BqN kdWh10B3KSzXFP+5GQXDaVxtMIn+rYA0L9JKU69r/jal7NdiPcwHxQFoESf9ZW1AVxsa bxC2EYygTGiMBz8mH6xVKh+b+t7XUpmZdLp80bg4trXokHmf+q0fkFdppTAx8puE1iiX QWXCpOQTboHOy1QIz/J/+GzHOM8JuyyicsfZHmrUA2EMPkb6CAiP7xKwH2Nsq6NgPxoN DYKA== X-Received: by 10.152.116.69 with SMTP id ju5mr37037lab.16.1391826869960; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 18:34:29 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.87.197 with SMTP id ba5ls208440lab.109.gmail; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 18:34:29 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.112.157.70 with SMTP id wk6mr7481774lbb.5.1391826869481; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 18:34:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-la0-x234.google.com (mail-la0-x234.google.com [2a00:1450:4010:c03::234]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id rk7si917176bkb.2.2014.02.07.18.34.29 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 07 Feb 2014 18:34:29 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of felipeg.assis@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::234 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c03::234; Received: by mail-la0-f52.google.com with SMTP id c6so3231010lan.39 for ; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 18:34:29 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.22.196 with SMTP id g4mr39385lbf.47.1391826869022; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 18:34:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.61.136 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 18:34:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 00:34:28 -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::234 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=14dae9473ba31df9fd04f1dbf2e2 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / --14dae9473ba31df9fd04f1dbf2e2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 7 February 2014 23:51, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis < > felipeg.assis@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7 February 2014 22:40, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: >> >>> >>> 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. >> > > (ko'a is not a bound variable though) > > Removing the relative clause does, in general, change the truth of the > sentence. Consider for example "ro ko'a poi broda cu brode" vs "ro ko'a > brode", or "no ko'a poi broda cu brode" vs "no ko'a brode". > Yeah, of course. Doesn't change the point, though, that {no ko'a poi broda} corresponds to {no da poi me ko'a gi'e broda} just as {no lo broda ku poi brode} corresponds to {no da poi me lo broda gi'e brode}. The quantification introduces a {me} that is absent in a plain description, and that is my point. > > > 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 th= e >> listener about what I am exactly pointing at. It is not like I am pointi= ng >> 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. >> > > Then I think "ti noi toldi", "ma'a no'u ..." would make more sense. "poi= " > is there to restrict the referents of "ti"/"ma'a", not to just comment on > them. > > (3) {ra poi danlu}: An alternative to {lo bi'u nai mlatu}. >> > > I think that should be "noi". Using "poi" to restrict from different > possible antecedents of "ra" seems like a metalinguistic deviation from > ordinary "poi". > > Then we have different understandings about the kinds of relative clauses. To me, the difference between {noi} and {poi} is not semantic, but pragmatic. It is all about Information Structure: When I use a incidental clause, I am indicating that the selsku is supposed to understand the reference without the additional commentary, while a restrictive one indicates that the information is essential to get the reference right. In the words of the CLL: "The difference between restrictive and incidental relative clauses is that restrictive clauses provide information that is essential to identifying the referent of the sumti to which they are attached, whereas incidental relative clauses provide additional information which is helpful to the listener but is not essential for identifying the referent of the sumti." Granted, it is very understandable that our two notions be confused with each other. On a typical situation, the universe of discourse has, say, two salient cars. In this case, {lo karce} is expected to refer to both of them, so, if I wanted to specify one of them with a relative clause, it would be essential information for understanding the reference, and thus restrictive, as in {lo karce poi blanu}; while if I wanted to talk about both of them, {lo karce} would be enough, and any relative clause should be thus incidental, as in {lo karce noi melbi}. It turns out we would arrive at exactly the same conclusions from your reasoning. The topic of this thread is one of the few examples in which a conflict appears. How do others feel about this? 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. --14dae9473ba31df9fd04f1dbf2e2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On 7 February 2014 23:51, Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.co= m> wrote:



O= n Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis = <felipeg.as= sis@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7 February 2014 22:40, Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias= @gmail.com> wrote:
I know about the rule for q= uantifiers, but it still can be seen as the relative clause adding a statem= ent 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.

(ko'a is= not a bound variable though)

Removing the relativ= e clause does, in general, change the truth of the sentence. Consider for e= xample "ro ko'a poi broda cu brode" vs "ro ko'a brod= e", or "no ko'a poi broda cu brode" vs "no ko'a= brode".=A0

Yeah, of course. D= oesn't change the point, though, that {no ko'a poi broda} correspon= ds to {no da poi me ko'a gi'e broda} just as {no lo broda ku poi br= ode} corresponds to {no da poi me lo broda gi'e brode}. The quantificat= ion introduces a {me} that is absent in a plain description, and that is my= point.
=A0
=A0

Consider other examples:
(1) {ti poi tol= di}: 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&#= 39;o denpa bu girzu}: When I use a personal pronoun, I have a clear conscie= nce 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

=A0Then I think &q= uot;ti noi toldi", "ma'a no'u ..." would make more s= ense. "poi" is there to restrict the referents of "ti"/= "ma'a", not to just comment on them.=A0

(3) {ra poi danlu}: An alternative to {lo bi'u nai mlatu}.

I think that sho= uld be "noi". Using "poi" to restrict from different po= ssible antecedents of "ra" seems like a metalinguistic deviation = from ordinary "poi".=A0


The= n we have different understandings about the kinds of relative clauses. To = me, the difference between {noi} and {poi} is not semantic, but pragmatic. = It is all about Information Structure: When I use a incidental clause, I am= indicating that the selsku is supposed to understand the reference without= the additional commentary, while a restrictive one indicates that the info= rmation is essential to get the reference right. In the words of the CLL:
"The difference between restrictive and incidental relative clause= s is=20 that restrictive clauses provide information that is essential to=20 identifying the referent of the sumti to which they are attached,=20 whereas incidental relative clauses provide additional information which is helpful to the listener but is not essential for identifying the=20 referent of the sumti."

Granted, it is very understa= ndable that our two notions be confused with each other. On a typical situa= tion, the universe of discourse has, say, two salient cars. In this case, {= lo karce} is expected to refer to both of them, so, if I wanted to specify = one of them with a relative clause, it would be essential information for u= nderstanding the reference, and thus restrictive, as in {lo karce poi blanu= }; while if I wanted to talk about both of them, {lo karce} would be enough= , and any relative clause should be thus incidental, as in {lo karce noi me= lbi}.

It turns out we would arrive at exactly the same conclusions from your = reasoning. The topic of this thread is one of the few examples in which a c= onflict appears.

How do others feel about this?

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.
--14dae9473ba31df9fd04f1dbf2e2--