Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.17.20 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.17.20;
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>
 <55AE1142.5090807@gmx.de>
 <8bab9435-5f94-4742-b74a-8cceac2c8a60@googlegroups.com>
From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <55AE616F.9040509@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 17:12:47 +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: <8bab9435-5f94-4742-b74a-8cceac2c8a60@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: -1.7
X-Spam_score_int: -16
X-Spam_bar: -

la .guskant. cu cusku di'e
> Le mardi 21 juillet 2015 09:30:41 UTC, selpa'i a =C3=A9crit :
>
>     di'e voi cusku ki fa la .guskant. ( :P )
>      > 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 clause.
>
>     Let's not keep mixing topics just yet. We can make {soi} a free
>     modifier
>     before worrying about doing anything to {sei}.
>
> OK, I should stop by pointing out the similarity of SEI and SOI, I
> should not talk about my ideal. I'm very sorry for that.

I was trying to keep the thread on topic, because threads often go on=20
too many tangents, which delays getting the main topic settled. Of=20
course you should talk about your ideals. It's just that SEI and SOI,=20
similar or not, can be treated individually.

>          (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"
>
> zo'u in this fragment is logically meaningless because of lack of main
> 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 meaningles=
s.

Why should the relative clause care about the main bridi? The relative=20
clause in (B) is like a predicate that attaches to {prenu} with {je}.=20
{poi ro da zo'u ...} could be rewritten {poi ckaji lo ka ro da zo'u=20
...}, and (B) could be rewritten as {lo prenu je ckaji be lo ka ...}.

At what point do you think does it stop being equivalent?

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

Good.

>          (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 suc=
h
>     that not every Lojbanist is such that their taking part in them occur=
s
>     regularly."
>
> No problem here. My main problem was this:
> what if some xoi-clauses and soi-clauses in a sentence have each prenex?
> which prenex will be regarded as outmost?
>
> However, considering (D), I understood the logical property of
> xoi/soi-clause.
> They are statements independent of the main bridi. Logically, {soi},
> {xoi} and {se'u} plays the same role as {to} {toi}.

This may be true for {soi}, but I'm not at all sure it's true for {xoi}.=20
There are two options for {xoi}: it's either restrictive or=20
non-restrictive. If it is one of the two, then we don't have a word for=20
the other and vice versa. There should really be two {xoi}. Let's call=20
them {Pxoi} and {Nxoi}. There is an important difference between (E) and=20
(F):

    (E) so'i verba cu krixa Pxoi fanza
        "Many children are yelling annoyingly."
        (There may be children there whose yelling isn't annoying)

    (F) so'i verba cu krixa Nxoi fanza
        "Many children are yelling, which is annoying."
        (Every yelling child is annoying)

Which one is {xoi} supposed to be?

mi'e la selpa'i mu'o

--=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.