Received: from mail-yk0-f188.google.com ([209.85.160.188]:33981) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1ZHYNs-0001Rh-2a for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 07:19:08 -0700 Received: by ykax123 with SMTP id x123sf71418091yka.1 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 07:18:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :content-type:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=xHeBFzVmJ+RugGvsK/WTRlr1rPO23v6Jw5hISXkrtrg=; b=rZOdC5poR/M/Wmb/7qCUweFlSqIYBtCj1eu+c1YYji8Dqv5iwydkie1Vvt/ES/l1rn vN9un1lTfLyQU1zssuOscORBtWmdE2M/sfMmRUalukkZZcyeq5t1osdTR6Ax4jrlC8Sa RhroDi8FcyUUzhCvKXG/dRnrTJ5iDS06VHEl2QBpzk18QDZQvUsXX61EQokvv31h8B3I Xtj3cHc4YbZdakv6UhD8R1P7dDtL7LhqJRAM0N04EbGZQpOOWHMl/1VbBouGFtkVii1K 0aM1VqnQ8f4AVPTdQjB/Cg1q52kGDZkgfQjxXTu0D++tX6zBNpMtDQvHDZdv7CLUnTlZ WNXg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :content-type:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=xHeBFzVmJ+RugGvsK/WTRlr1rPO23v6Jw5hISXkrtrg=; b=Ul0yo7yeBRoLYTR8C4iVwdsmNlrgXh7acO3kLHab6hoStUPfoZKa6f3twYrp5kfuza qmjb7GwDyzUxvi+DXstyRqx7p4Bpia6lSj0FON4kM4I0MatZ+G6+WeKLGXWNNihEr4Rp ri1vlVk7Hsl1LvTnz0UG+6kaEBf8V7bzbWBGzS40c9ozgV56wFyqCtZvwDXgEepFqi3G +zMGhV7pl5ptoDjetyosgNR9M02kncUOpPlkmVE4iptsdgiUujdj7yxVd7ad8Io2skiP ptiNL/u0qKB7v6anMdz5Vo8xMyOpeJRdv67eC+1D3U2BsB2nx/sCPW5Fojv02RUUpDIW WTXg== X-Received: by 10.50.128.197 with SMTP id nq5mr284762igb.13.1437488338102; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 07:18:58 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.30.102 with SMTP id r6ls944989igh.3.canary; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 07:18:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.122.40 with SMTP id lp8mr254361igb.0.1437488337791; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 07:18:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 07:18:56 -0700 (PDT) From: guskant To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: <8bab9435-5f94-4742-b74a-8cceac2c8a60@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <55AE1142.5090807@gmx.de> References: <1c2a3b64-07b1-4023-a740-362deb17da34@googlegroups.com> <55AD070D.5020903@gmx.de> <55AE1142.5090807@gmx.de> Subject: Re: [lojban] xoi and new soi as bridi relative clause MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_1029_479148982.1437488336823" X-Original-Sender: gusni.kantu@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Spam-Checked-In-Group: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.8 X-Spam_score_int: -17 X-Spam_bar: - ------=_Part_1029_479148982.1437488336823 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1030_190785726.1437488336824" ------=_Part_1030_190785726.1437488336824 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Le mardi 21 juillet 2015 07:45:12 UTC, la gleki a =C3=A9crit : > > > 2015-07-21 9:44 GMT+03:00 guskant : > >> Considering the simplicity of grammar and the advantage of new SOI=20 >> compared with SEI, it would be better to modify SEI so that it encloses = a=20 >> sentence, and merge {soi} to selma'o SEI, though this change will requir= e=20 >> more {se'u}.=20 >> > > This would be absolutely devastating. {sei} is very similar to LE and=20 > that's the simplicity of the grammar. > I don't see any need in changing it, what is more the current grammar of= =20 > SEI is more advantageous to me. > > It's not simplicity of grammar but similarity of form of description sumti= =20 and inserted bridi. If {sei}-clause could enclose a sentence, the grammar= =20 would be 23 bytes smaller. If we add {soi}-clause to "free", the structure= =20 and the usage will be very similar to {sei}-clause. If we had the structure= =20 of "SOI sentence SEhU" from the beginning of Lojban, I would have never=20 used "SEI terms selbri SEhU".=20 Le mardi 21 juillet 2015 09:30:41 UTC, selpa'i a =C3=A9crit : > > di'e voi cusku ki fa la .guskant. ( :P )=20 > > In order to keep (A) in which {soi} is replaced by {xoi} be valid, new= =20 > > selma'o XOI should be substituted for the new SOI so that {xoi}-clause= =20 > > be a term.=20 > >=20 > > new SOI will become almost the same as SEI. The difference is only the= =20 > > bridi-tail (and pseudo-{zo'u} if {soi}-clause encloses a "subsentence")= .=20 > >=20 > > Considering the simplicity of grammar and the advantage of new SOI=20 > > compared with SEI, it would be better to modify SEI so that it encloses= =20 > > a sentence, and merge {soi} to selma'o SEI, though this change will=20 > > require more {se'u}.=20 > >=20 > > Even if {sei} and {soi} are in the same selma'o, they can be=20 > > semantically different: {sei} will have the same scope as UI, while=20 > > {soi} will have the broadest scope over a sentence, and may take the=20 > > "signified" of the sentence with {ke'a} in the clause.=20 > > Let's not keep mixing topics just yet. We can make {soi} a free modifier= =20 > before worrying about doing anything to {sei}.=20 > > =20 OK, I should stop by pointing out the similarity of SEI and SOI, I should= =20 not talk about my ideal. I'm very sorry for that. > By the way, on the "new soi" page, "subsentence" is suggested in=20 > > {soi}-clause. Do you intend to use {zo'u} in {soi}-clause, or it simply= =20 > > inherited the official grammar of NU/NOI? {zo'u} in NOI- or new SOI/XOI= -=20 > > clauses may produce logical problem, and I want to avoid it if possible= .=20 > > (la zantufa-0.2 allowed "statement" including {zo'u} in NOI-clause, but= =20 > > it will be changed to "sentence" in the future version, and then {zo'u}= =20 > > in NOI-clause will be banned.)=20 > > What are the logical problems when allowing a prenex in NU/NOI/SOI? The= =20 > prenex has scope over the NU/NOI/SOI, which in turn has scope over the=20 > main bridi.=20 > > I said only NOI and SOI/XOI, not NU. From a logical point of view, a prenex= =20 is unnecessary or rather problematic in NOI-clause, while NU clause must be= =20 able to enclose a prenex with full logical connectives. =20 > (B) lo prenu poi ro da zo'u ke'a djica lo nu ke'a viska da=20 > "people that are such that for all X, they want to see X"=20 > > zo'u in this fragment is logically meaningless because of lack of main=20 bridi. If there were main bridi, the prenex could be put out: roda zo'u ko'a prenu ije ko'a djica lo nu ko'a viska da And then it becomes logically analyzable. Prenex in noi-clause is only a pseudo-prenex that is logically meaningless. =20 > > (C) ra troci lo ka ro da zo'u lo nu da viska ce'u cu rinka lo nu da= =20 > cisma=20 > "She attempts that for all X, X seeing her causes X to smile."=20 > > I said {zo'u} in NU-clause is necessary. No problem here. =20 > > (D) ma'a ca ro xavdei lo ka vokta'a cu simxu, soi ku'i na ku ro da=20 > poi jbopre zo'u lo nu da pagzu'e ke'a cu dikni=20 > "On every Saturday we have vocal chats, which however is such=20 > that not every Lojbanist is such that their taking part in them occurs=20 > regularly."=20 > > No problem here. My main problem was this:=20 what if some xoi-clauses and soi-clauses in a sentence have each prenex?=20 which prenex will be regarded as outmost?=20 However, considering (D), I understood the logical property of=20 xoi/soi-clause. They are statements independent of the main bridi. Logically, {soi}, {xoi}= =20 and {se'u} plays the same role as {to} {toi}. Then a full statement should= =20 be allowed to xoi/soi-clauses. =20 --=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. ------=_Part_1030_190785726.1437488336824 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Le mardi 21 juillet 2015 07:45:12 UTC, la gleki a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:=

2015-07-21 9:44 GMT+03:00 guskant=C2=A0<gusni...= @gmail.com>:
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}.= =C2=A0

This would be absolutely deva= stating. {sei} is very similar to LE and that's the simplicity of the g= rammar.
I don't see any need in changing it, what is more the= current grammar of SEI is more advantageous to me.



It's not simplicity = of grammar but similarity of form of description sumti and inserted bridi. = If {sei}-clause could enclose a sentence, the grammar would be 23 bytes sma= ller. If we add {soi}-clause to "free", the structure and the usa= ge will be very similar to {sei}-clause. If we had the structure of "S= OI sentence SEhU" from the beginning of Lojban, I would have never use= d "SEI terms selbri SEhU".=C2=A0


Le mardi= 21 juillet 2015 09:30:41 UTC, selpa'i a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
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 enc= loses
> 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, whil= e
> {soi} will have the broadest scope over a sentence, and may take t= he
> "signified" of the sentence with {ke'a} in the claus= e.

Let's not keep mixing topics just yet. We can make {soi} a free mod= ifier=20
before worrying about doing anything to {sei}.


=C2=A0
OK, I should sto= p by pointing out the similarity of SEI and SOI, I should not talk about my= ideal. I'm very sorry for that.


> By the way, on the &qu= ot;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 ne= w SOI/XOI-
> clauses may produce logical problem, and I want to avoid it if pos= sible.
> (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= =20
prenex has scope over the NU/NOI/SOI, which in turn has scope over the= =20
main bridi.



I said only NOI and SOI= /XOI, not NU. From a logical point of view, a prenex is unnecessary or rath= er problematic in NOI-clause, while NU clause must be able to enclose a pre= nex with full logical connectives.

=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 (B) lo prenu poi ro= da zo'u ke'a djica lo nu ke'a viska da
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 "people that are such that for all X, = they want to see X"



zo'u in this fragme= nt is logically meaningless because of lack of main bridi. If there were ma= in bridi, the prenex could be put out:

roda zo'= ;u ko'a prenu ije ko'a djica lo nu ko'a viska da

=
And then it becomes logically analyzable.
Prenex in no= i-clause is only a pseudo-prenex that is logically meaningless.
<= br>
=C2=A0

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 (C) ra troci lo ka ro da zo'u lo nu da viska ce'u= cu rinka lo nu da=20
cisma
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 "She attempts that for all X, X seeing= her causes X to smile."



I said {zo'u} in NU= -clause is necessary. No problem here.

=C2=A0

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 (D) ma'a ca ro xavdei lo ka vokta'a cu simxu, soi= ku'i na ku ro da=20
poi jbopre zo'u lo nu da pagzu'e ke'a cu dikni
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 "On every Saturday we have vocal chats= , which however is such=20
that not every Lojbanist is such that their taking part in them occurs= =20
regularly."



No problem here. My mai= n problem was this:=C2=A0
what if some xoi-clauses and soi-clause= s in a sentence have each prenex? which prenex will be regarded as outmost?= =C2=A0

However, considering (D), I understood the = logical property of xoi/soi-clause.
They are statements independe= nt of the main bridi. Logically, {soi}, {xoi} and {se'u} plays the same= role as {to} {toi}. Then a full statement should be allowed to xoi/soi-cla= uses.

=C2=A0

--
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+unsub= scribe@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 http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
------=_Part_1030_190785726.1437488336824-- ------=_Part_1029_479148982.1437488336823--