Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 20:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>
To: lojban <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Message-Id: <8e076a72-407a-498b-bb60-a2badff5e40f@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <55AE616F.9040509@gmx.de>
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>
 <55AE616F.9040509@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [lojban] xoi and new soi as bridi relative clause
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
	boundary="----=_Part_281_1364522532.1437534761699"
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: -2.0
X-Spam_score_int: -19
X-Spam_bar: --

------=_Part_281_1364522532.1437534761699
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_282_1123421868.1437534761700"

------=_Part_282_1123421868.1437534761700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Le mardi 21 juillet 2015 15:12:47 UTC, selpa'i a =C3=A9crit :
>
> la .guskant. cu cusku di'e=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
> >=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:=20
> >=20
> > roda zo'u ko'a prenu ije ko'a djica lo nu ko'a viska da=20
> >=20
> > And then it becomes logically analyzable.=20
> > Prenex in noi-clause is only a pseudo-prenex that is logically=20
> meaningless.=20
>
> 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 ...}.=20
>
> At what point do you think does it stop being equivalent?=20
>
>

Relative clauses should care about the main bridi, because the bridi in=20
relative clauses share their universe of discourse with the main bridi.=20
About this example of fragment, I said only "logically meaningless", but it=
=20
does not bring any problem by itself.=20

The problem occurs in the case that plural relative clauses appears with=20
their own prenex, sometimes nested in logical connectives. Which prenex is=
=20
the outmost? How can the negations, numbers and logical connectives are=20
transformed into a prenex normal form?


> >          (D) ma'a ca ro xavdei lo ka vokta'a cu simxu, soi ku'i na ku r=
o=20
> 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=
=20
> such=20
> >     that not every Lojbanist is such that their taking part in them=20
> occurs=20
> >     regularly."=20
> >=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
> >=20
> > However, considering (D), I understood the logical property of=20
> > xoi/soi-clause.=20
> > They are statements independent of the main bridi. Logically, {soi},=20
> > {xoi} and {se'u} plays the same role as {to} {toi}.=20
>
> 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):=20
>
>     (E) so'i verba cu krixa Pxoi fanza=20
>         "Many children are yelling annoyingly."=20
>         (There may be children there whose yelling isn't annoying)=20
>
>     (F) so'i verba cu krixa Nxoi fanza=20
>         "Many children are yelling, which is annoying."=20
>         (Every yelling child is annoying)=20
>
> Which one is {xoi} supposed to be?=20
>
>

If (E), xoi-clause encloses a sentence, not a statement. If (F) can be=20
expressed by soi-clause, then (E) for xoi is useful, though I don't know=20
which the creator of the word think of.
=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_282_1123421868.1437534761700
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<br><br>Le mardi 21 juillet 2015 15:12:47 UTC, selpa&#39;i a =C3=A9crit=C2=
=A0:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex=
;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">la .guskant. cu cusku di&#=
39;e
<br>&gt; =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0(B) lo prenu poi ro da zo&#39;u =
ke&#39;a djica lo nu ke&#39;a viska da
<br>&gt; =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0&quot;people that =
are such that for all X, they want to see X&quot;
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; zo&#39;u in this fragment is logically meaningless because of lack=
 of main
<br>&gt; bridi. If there were main bridi, the prenex could be put out:
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; roda zo&#39;u ko&#39;a prenu ije ko&#39;a djica lo nu ko&#39;a vis=
ka da
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; And then it becomes logically analyzable.
<br>&gt; Prenex in noi-clause is only a pseudo-prenex that is logically mea=
ningless.
<br>
<br>Why should the relative clause care about the main bridi? The relative=
=20
<br>clause in (B) is like a predicate that attaches to {prenu} with {je}.=
=20
<br>{poi ro da zo&#39;u ...} could be rewritten {poi ckaji lo ka ro da zo&#=
39;u=20
<br>...}, and (B) could be rewritten as {lo prenu je ckaji be lo ka ...}.
<br>
<br>At what point do you think does it stop being equivalent?
<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div><br></div><div>Relative clauses s=
hould care about the main bridi, because the bridi in relative clauses shar=
e their universe of discourse with the main bridi. About this example of fr=
agment, I said only &quot;logically meaningless&quot;, but it does not brin=
g any problem by itself.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>The problem occurs =
in the case that plural relative clauses appears with their own prenex, som=
etimes nested in logical connectives. Which prenex is the outmost? How can =
the negations, numbers and logical connectives are transformed into a prene=
x normal form?</div><div><br></div></div><div><br></div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #cc=
c solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><br>&gt; =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0(D) =
ma&#39;a ca ro xavdei lo ka vokta&#39;a cu simxu, soi ku&#39;i na ku ro da
<br>&gt; =C2=A0 =C2=A0 poi jbopre zo&#39;u lo nu da pagzu&#39;e ke&#39;a cu=
 dikni
<br>&gt; =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0&quot;On every Sat=
urday we have vocal chats, which however is such
<br>&gt; =C2=A0 =C2=A0 that not every Lojbanist is such that their taking p=
art in them occurs
<br>&gt; =C2=A0 =C2=A0 regularly.&quot;
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; No problem here. My main problem was this:
<br>&gt; what if some xoi-clauses and soi-clauses in a sentence have each p=
renex?
<br>&gt; which prenex will be regarded as outmost?
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; However, considering (D), I understood the logical property of
<br>&gt; xoi/soi-clause.
<br>&gt; They are statements independent of the main bridi. Logically, {soi=
},
<br>&gt; {xoi} and {se&#39;u} plays the same role as {to} {toi}.
<br>
<br>This may be true for {soi}, but I&#39;m not at all sure it&#39;s true f=
or {xoi}.=20
<br>There are two options for {xoi}: it&#39;s either restrictive or=20
<br>non-restrictive. If it is one of the two, then we don&#39;t have a word=
 for=20
<br>the other and vice versa. There should really be two {xoi}. Let&#39;s c=
all=20
<br>them {Pxoi} and {Nxoi}. There is an important difference between (E) an=
d=20
<br>(F):
<br>
<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 (E) so&#39;i verba cu krixa Pxoi fanza
<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 &quot;Many children are yelling annoyingly.=
&quot;
<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 (There may be children there whose yelling =
isn&#39;t annoying)
<br>
<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 (F) so&#39;i verba cu krixa Nxoi fanza
<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 &quot;Many children are yelling, which is a=
nnoying.&quot;
<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 (Every yelling child is annoying)
<br>
<br>Which one is {xoi} supposed to be?
<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>If (E), xoi-clause encl=
oses a sentence, not a statement. If (F) can be expressed by soi-clause, th=
en (E) for xoi is useful, though I don&#39;t know which the creator of the =
word think of.</div><div>=C2=A0</div>

<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 />

------=_Part_282_1123421868.1437534761700--
------=_Part_281_1364522532.1437534761699--