Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400c:c03::22e as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400c:c03::22e;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALMa68oeK_0bSqbuh6cbrzzk=f5RPvcJb4-An_pkAfXuOZ+wkg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALMa68pAATH-Vs_S8mwH+9m31WoTCdZ-c_sGfe0GGNE05cEhRQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKOEKkQ9cmDxN8wap15qeYPFdu6LiusmNYrOF90esZpp86qemg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALMa68qdWo6ZyrYjDZ_3gSy65770N4-oticVyb7BoS0iFJhu1Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAO7tK2ebL0DEmzhkp_STdRNJnMYmYhe8-Tz2CeuHbC7J3OzDSQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALMa68ppO6KTmWqLXgvDiR7VV-MF-x5DVm_SZuo0yL7FNNhp7w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAO7tK2dPujdfvchn2QLcaAmU1n0FLuK=fSfFmfT_r=SO+=PtUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALMa68oeK_0bSqbuh6cbrzzk=f5RPvcJb4-An_pkAfXuOZ+wkg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 12:11:45 -0200
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2c+_D=puWni4S-XRefyUR+tvTPh7nxQeKCFTF9vRzKQZA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] [oz] {ny poi cy ke'a falcru}
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
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=047d7b342d30c778e504f1e5afe3
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

--047d7b342d30c778e504f1e5afe3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis <
felipeg.assis@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>>  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.
>

Right, "noi" adds a comment about the referents of a sumti, but it doesn't
affect the bridi in which the sumti appears. "noi" is never problematic
with unquantified sumti, but with quantifier terms, "noi" can cause
problems. "su'o broda noi brode cu brodi" has two possible readings. This
is because the noi-clause is now being attached to something that is
sintactically a term, but semantically it is not something that has
referents, so we have to go searching for the things about which noi is to
comment in a roundabout way.

"poi" is the opposite, it is unproblematic with quantifiers (which I think
of as its home turf) but could be problematic when attached to an
unquantified sumti. In the case of pure "PA da poi ..." the restriction
simply defines the domain for the bound variable to range over, it is just
a restriction from the universe of discourse. In the case of "PA SUMTI poi
..." we can say now that the poi-restriction is from the referents of SUMTI
instead of from the total universe of discourse. Or, alternatively, we can
say that the poi-clause will help determine the referents of SUMTI, and
that those referents then constitute the domain for the quantifier. The end
result is the same.

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.
>

Right. The only situation in which the two approaches will differ seems to
be when "poi" is attached to a sumti that already has its referents
determined beforehand. Then when the poi-clause is a proper restriction on
those referents, it will be fine with the poi-as-restriction approach, but
it will fail with the poi-as-referent-determiner approach. But then what is
the advantage of this second approach? When both approaches work, they mean
the same thing, and when they don't mean the same thing, it's because the
second approach breaks down, not because it has an alternative use.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--=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.

--047d7b342d30c778e504f1e5afe3
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail=
_quote">On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis <span dir=
=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:felipeg.assis@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">f=
elipeg.assis@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra">=
<div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex=
">
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div></div></blockquote><d=
iv>=A0To me, the difference between {noi} and {poi} is not semantic, but pr=
agmatic. It is all about Information Structure: When I use a incidental cla=
use, I am indicating that the selsku is supposed to understand the referenc=
e without the additional commentary, while a restrictive one indicates that=
 the information is essential to get the reference right. </div>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Right, &quot;noi&quot; a=
dds a comment about the referents of a sumti, but it doesn&#39;t affect the=
 bridi in which the sumti appears. &quot;noi&quot; is never problematic wit=
h unquantified sumti, but with quantifier terms, &quot;noi&quot; can cause =
problems. &quot;su&#39;o broda noi brode cu brodi&quot; has two possible re=
adings. This is because the noi-clause is now being attached to something t=
hat is sintactically a term, but semantically it is not something that has =
referents, so we have to go searching for the things about which noi is to =
comment in a roundabout way.</div>
<div><br></div><div>&quot;poi&quot; is the opposite, it is unproblematic wi=
th quantifiers (which I think of as its home turf) but could be problematic=
 when attached to an unquantified sumti. In the case of pure &quot;PA da po=
i ...&quot; the restriction simply defines the domain for the bound variabl=
e to range over, it is just a restriction from the universe of discourse. I=
n the case of &quot;PA SUMTI poi ...&quot; we can say now that the poi-rest=
riction is from the referents of SUMTI instead of from the total universe o=
f discourse. Or, alternatively, we can say that the poi-clause will help de=
termine the referents of SUMTI, and that those referents then constitute th=
e domain for the quantifier. The end result is the same.=A0</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex=
;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=
=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div>It turns out we would arri=
ve at exactly the same conclusions from your reasoning. The topic of this t=
hread is one of the few examples in which a conflict appears.<br>
</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Right. The only si=
tuation in which the two approaches will differ seems to be when &quot;poi&=
quot; is attached to a sumti that already has its referents determined befo=
rehand. Then when the poi-clause is a proper restriction on those referents=
, it will be fine with the poi-as-restriction approach, but it will fail wi=
th the poi-as-referent-determiner approach. But then what is the advantage =
of this second approach? When both approaches work, they mean the same thin=
g, and when they don&#39;t mean the same thing, it&#39;s because the second=
 approach breaks down, not because it has an alternative use.</div>
<div><br></div><div>mu&#39;o mi&#39;e xorxes</div><div><br></div></div></di=
v></div>

<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 />

--047d7b342d30c778e504f1e5afe3--