Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of durka42@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400d:c00::236 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400d:c00::236;
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 12:25:13 -0400
From: Alex Burka <durka42@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-ID: <95511D584AB54D00B50547BFBC84369C@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACf3dP=ZV7kjsBZF9dLVjg_sV=yrTwnkz9dQ2EuL5ZEnO0cGdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACf3dPkE_stJN1haf26RaQTCP+sdqL9f48q26DkLoE_6BCzdxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <957408e7-c827-4460-bf97-4a85642f29c7@googlegroups.com>
 <CACf3dP=ZV7kjsBZF9dLVjg_sV=yrTwnkz9dQ2EuL5ZEnO0cGdA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: New soi's scope
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="542987e9_2123d5f2_114"
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

--542987e9_2123d5f2_114
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Yeah, the rules for scope-leaping could be more well-defined, though the co=
ncept seems pretty good to me. As it is, it seems if you have two or more {=
soi} clauses, they have equal scope at the top of the sentence, but I don't=
 know if "equal scope" can be formalized.

How would you see a generalized scope-leaping mechanism working? Would it b=
e some kind of UI to explicitly mark scope? One could argue that scope-leap=
ing should be discouraged as confusing, so maybe {soi} should be the only w=
ay to do it.

Is there a succinct description of Xorban's binary branching scope somewher=
e? I'm not 100% sure what you mean by that.

With respect to selma'o, according to the LMW page, new-{soi} is in a new s=
elma'o SOI (though still terminated by {se'u}), where the only grammatical =
difference from SEI is that SOI takes a whole sub-bridi rather than a degen=
erate one. And the selma'o XOI, as described for {xoi} in jbovlaste, seems =
to have exactly the same grammar. So I suspect the versions of SOI and XOI =
that we are currently discussing are actually the same selma'o (members of =
the same selma'o can clearly have different scope semantics; cf. KOhA).

mu'o mi'e la durka ku do'u =20


On Monday, September 29, 2014 at 4:45 AM, And Rosta wrote:

> =20
> On 29 Sep 2014 04:17, "la durka" <durka42@gmail.com (mailto:durka42@gmail=
.com)> wrote:
> >
> > The reason for making it that way (the term "scope leaper" has been use=
d) was precisely to provide a way to escape the normal left-to-right scopin=
g rule, to make certain things easier to express without rearranging the en=
tire sentence structure. A similar proposed bridi modifier (xoi as currentl=
y defined in jbovlaste) is right-scoping like tags.
> >
> > la selpa'i has some discussion in the second half of this post. =20
> Ah, I see. Surely the basic form should be xoi, in selmaho XOI. If scope-=
leaping is desired -- and it should be admissible only if the scope-leaping=
 rules are robustly defined, which is a tall order -- then surely it should=
 provide variants of all scope-sensitive constituents, without arbitrarily =
privileging bridi relatives.
> (Whether xoi must be in XOI rather than SEI is unclear, partly because th=
e right criteria for selmahofellowhood are unclear (if selmaho means actual=
 grammatical word-class rather than the sense it has in Lojban's current ps=
eudogrammar).)
> --And.
> >
> > mu'o mi'e la durka
> >
> > El domingo, 28 de septiembre de 2014 20:37:55 UTC-4, And Rosta escribi=
=C3=B3:
> >>
> >> I've just noticed that new soi "always takes top scope". Why is that? =
Not knowing the discussion that led to that choice, I incline to the view t=
hat in a reformed Lojban there would be a new syntax that syntacticizes the=
 left-to-right scope rule (so that clause structure is binary branching, as=
 in Xorban), in which case you'd expect soi to scope over what it precedes.=
 Most if not all tags (e.g. tense) could be seen as abbreviations of soi ph=
rases, and hence you'd expect soi phrases to have the scopal properties of =
tags.
> >>
> >> --And.
> >
> > -- =20
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Grou=
ps "lojban" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send =
an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com (mailto:lojban%2Bunsubscrib=
e@googlegroups.com).
> > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com (mailto:lo=
jban@googlegroups.com).
> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> -- =20
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Go=
ogle Groups "lojban" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/l=
ojban/y0lJZ_kOI2I/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to lojba=
n+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com (mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com)=
.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com (mailto:lojb=
an@googlegroups.com).
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--=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/d/optout.

--542987e9_2123d5f2_114
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline


                <div>
                    <div>Yeah, the rules for scope-leaping could be more we=
ll-defined, though the concept seems pretty good to me. As it is, it seems =
if you have two or more {soi} clauses, they have equal scope at the top of =
the sentence, but I don't know if "equal scope" can be formalized.</div><di=
v><br></div><div>How would you see a generalized scope-leaping mechanism wo=
rking? Would it be some kind of UI to explicitly mark scope? One could argu=
e that scope-leaping should be discouraged as confusing, so maybe {soi} sho=
uld be the only way to do it.</div><div><br></div><div>Is there a succinct =
description of Xorban's binary branching scope somewhere? I'm not 100% sure=
 what you mean by that.</div><div><br></div><div>With respect to selma'o, a=
ccording to the LMW page, new-{soi} is in a new selma'o SOI (though still t=
erminated by {se'u}), where the only grammatical difference from SEI is tha=
t SOI takes a whole sub-bridi rather than a degenerate one. And the selma'o=
 XOI, as described for {xoi} in jbovlaste, seems to have exactly the same g=
rammar. So I suspect the versions of SOI and XOI that we are currently disc=
ussing are actually the same selma'o (members of the same selma'o can clear=
ly have different scope semantics; cf. KOhA).</div><div><br></div><div>mu'o=
 mi'e la durka ku do'u</div>
                </div>
                <div></div>
                =20
                <p style=3D"color: #A0A0A8;">On Monday, September 29, 2014 =
at 4:45 AM, And Rosta wrote:</p>
                <blockquote type=3D"cite" style=3D"border-left-style:solid;=
border-width:1px;margin-left:0px;padding-left:10px;">
                    <span><div><div><p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On 29 Sep 2014 04:17, "la durka" &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:durka42@gmail.com">d=
urka42@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; The reason for making it that way (the term "scope leaper" has been us=
ed) was precisely to provide a way to escape the normal left-to-right scopi=
ng rule, to make certain things easier to express without rearranging the e=
ntire sentence structure. A similar proposed bridi modifier (xoi as current=
ly defined in jbovlaste) is right-scoping like tags.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; la selpa'i has some discussion in the second half of this post.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Ah, I see. Surely the basic form should be xoi, in selmaho X=
OI. If scope-leaping is desired -- and it should be admissible only if the =
scope-leaping rules are robustly defined, which is a tall order -- then sur=
ely it should provide variants of all scope-sensitive constituents, without=
 arbitrarily privileging bridi relatives.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">(Whether xoi must be in XOI rather than SEI is unclear, part=
ly because the right criteria for selmahofellowhood are unclear (if selmaho=
 means actual grammatical word-class rather than the sense it has in Lojban=
's current pseudogrammar).)</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">--And.<br></p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">&gt;<br>
&gt; mu'o mi'e la durka<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; El domingo, 28 de septiembre de 2014 20:37:55 UTC-4, And Rosta escribi=
=C3=B3:<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; I've just noticed that new soi "always takes top scope". Why is th=
at? Not knowing the discussion that led to that choice, I incline to the vi=
ew that in a reformed Lojban there would be a new syntax that syntacticizes=
 the left-to-right scope rule (so that clause structure is binary branching=
, as in Xorban), in which case you'd expect soi to scope over what it prece=
des. Most if not all tags (e.g. tense) could be seen as abbreviations of so=
i phrases, and hence you'd expect soi phrases to have the scopal properties=
 of tags.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; --And.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; -- <br>
&gt; You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro=
ups "lojban" group.<br>
&gt; To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send=
 an email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojba=
n+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
&gt; To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegr=
oups.com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
&gt; Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">=
http://groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br>
&gt; For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout"=
>https://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br>
</p>

<p></p>

-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Goog=
le Groups "lojban" group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/=
d/topic/lojban/y0lJZ_kOI2I/unsubscribe">https://groups.google.com/d/topic/l=
ojban/y0lJZ_kOI2I/unsubscribe</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to <a href=
=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsubscribe@googlegr=
oups.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>
</div></div></span>
                =20
                =20
                =20
                =20
                </blockquote>
                =20
                <div>
                    <br>
                </div>
           =20

<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 />

--542987e9_2123d5f2_114--