Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400e:c03::229 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400e:c03::229;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACf3dPniWPENbiHT=EsTHGTApOOx5duQgo5SxZevF=FM7jUnqg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACf3dPniWPENbiHT=EsTHGTApOOx5duQgo5SxZevF=FM7jUnqg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 12:35:50 +0100
Message-ID: <CACf3dPnptiNra7pU3dyuC7-Mhm-T6_mpyP92SNs1GXy+Roo+dw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [lojban] Re: {da poi} (was: Re: tersmu 0.2
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@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=001a1137fbc85f2c1a05041e8d1a
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

--001a1137fbc85f2c1a05041e8d1a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 28 Sep 2014 12:04, and.rosta@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On 28 Sep 2014 02:34, "Martin Bays" <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > the compositionality
> > of restrictive clauses (which admittedly is already broken in some other
> > cases, e.g. {da poi broda}).
>
> I agree {da poi} looks broken. What are the remedies? (1) To allow
noncompositional idioms? (2) To define /poi/ as an allomorph of /noi/ in
this syntactic environment? (3) To accept that, given the internal logic of
the language, {da poi} as habitually used is simply wrong? (4) To seek and
find a consistent definition for {poi} and {noi} such that {da poi} usage
becomes correct?

I realize I was too hasty. Modifying a constant, X poi/noi broda both mean
"me X" & "broda", differing in the scopal position of "broda", local for
poi and outermost (in the entire logical form) for noi. Modifying a
variable, that cannot be the difference. I had been assuming that noi
modifying a variable would have outermost scopal position within the domain
in which the variable is bound. But I haven't studied the matter long
enough to be sure that there is no other equally coherent definition for
poi & noi.

At any rate, none of this is in CLL, so at best is part of the lore of what
should go into a revised CLL.

--And.

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--001a1137fbc85f2c1a05041e8d1a
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On 28 Sep 2014 12:04, <a href=3D"mailto:and.rosta@gmail.com">and.rosta@gmai=
l.com</a> wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; On 28 Sep 2014 02:34, &quot;Martin Bays&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mb=
ays@sdf.org">mbays@sdf.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; &gt; the compositionality<br>
&gt; &gt; of restrictive clauses (which admittedly is already broken in som=
e other<br>
&gt; &gt; cases, e.g. {da poi broda}).<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I agree {da poi} looks broken. What are the remedies? (1) To allow non=
compositional idioms? (2) To define /poi/ as an allomorph of /noi/ in this =
syntactic environment? (3) To accept that, given the internal logic of the =
language, {da poi} as habitually used is simply wrong? (4) To seek and find=
 a consistent definition for {poi} and {noi} such that {da poi} usage becom=
es correct?</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I realize I was too hasty. Modifying a constant, X poi/noi b=
roda both mean &quot;me X&quot; &amp; &quot;broda&quot;, differing in the s=
copal position of &quot;broda&quot;, local for poi and outermost (in the en=
tire logical form) for noi. Modifying a variable, that cannot be the differ=
ence. I had been assuming that noi modifying a variable would have outermos=
t scopal position within the domain in which the variable is bound. But I h=
aven&#39;t studied the matter long enough to be sure that there is no other=
 equally coherent definition for poi &amp; noi.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">At any rate, none of this is in CLL, so at best is part of t=
he lore of what should go into a revised CLL.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">--And.</p>

<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 <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<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/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

--001a1137fbc85f2c1a05041e8d1a--