Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.15.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.15.18;
Subject: Re: [lojban] xoi and new soi as bridi relative clause
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
References: <1c2a3b64-07b1-4023-a740-362deb17da34@googlegroups.com>
 <55AD070D.5020903@gmx.de>
 <f74f87f4-75be-4400-927c-0cf13f8a344a@googlegroups.com>
From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <55AE1142.5090807@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:30:42 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f74f87f4-75be-4400-927c-0cf13f8a344a@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

di'e voi cusku ki fa la .guskant. ( :P )
> In order to keep (A) in which {soi} is replaced by {xoi} be valid, new
> selma'o XOI should be substituted for the new SOI so that {xoi}-clause
> be a term.
>
> new SOI will become almost the same as SEI. The difference is only the
> bridi-tail (and pseudo-{zo'u} if {soi}-clause encloses a "subsentence").
>
> Considering the simplicity of grammar and the advantage of new SOI
> compared with SEI, it would be better to modify SEI so that it encloses
> a sentence, and merge {soi} to selma'o SEI, though this change will
> require more {se'u}.
>
> Even if {sei} and {soi} are in the same selma'o, they can be
> semantically different: {sei} will have the same scope as UI, while
> {soi} will have the broadest scope over a sentence, and may take the
> "signified" of the sentence with {ke'a} in the clause.

Let's not keep mixing topics just yet. We can make {soi} a free modifier 
before worrying about doing anything to {sei}.

> By the way, on the "new soi" page, "subsentence" is suggested in
> {soi}-clause. Do you intend to use {zo'u} in {soi}-clause, or it simply
> inherited the official grammar of NU/NOI? {zo'u} in NOI- or new SOI/XOI-
> clauses may produce logical problem, and I want to avoid it if possible.
> (la zantufa-0.2 allowed "statement" including {zo'u} in NOI-clause, but
> it will be changed to "sentence" in the future version, and then {zo'u}
> in NOI-clause will be banned.)

What are the logical problems when allowing a prenex in NU/NOI/SOI? The 
prenex has scope over the NU/NOI/SOI, which in turn has scope over the 
main bridi.

    (B) lo prenu poi ro da zo'u ke'a djica lo nu ke'a viska da
        "people that are such that for all X, they want to see X"


    (C) ra troci lo ka ro da zo'u lo nu da viska ce'u cu rinka lo nu da 
cisma
        "She attempts that for all X, X seeing her causes X to smile."


    (D) ma'a ca ro xavdei lo ka vokta'a cu simxu, soi ku'i na ku ro da 
poi jbopre zo'u lo nu da pagzu'e ke'a cu dikni
        "On every Saturday we have vocal chats, which however is such 
that not every Lojbanist is such that their taking part in them occurs 
regularly."


Which, if any, of these are problematic to you? (Sorry for the long 
example (D), it was the first thing that came to mind)

mi'e la selpa'i mu'o

-- 
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.