Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::234 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::234;
Message-ID: <55C132F0.20008@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 23:47:28 +0200
From: Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] xoi and new soi as bridi relative clause
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>
In-Reply-To: <55AE616F.9040509@gmx.de>
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: -

Actually I'm not sure anymore which of those {xoi} should be. Initially=20
I made this particle as a better and more precise alternative to {fi'o},=20
that would parallel NOI in syntax and enable rewording any sumtcita tag=20
as a xoi-phrase. However it's turning out that maybe there are two=20
distinct and mutually exclusive categories of sumtcita cmavo, namely=20
subordinating sumtcita (ka'e, ka'enai=E2=80=A6), whose host bridi's truth v=
alue=20
depends on the sumtcita's meaning, versus realis/non-subortinating=20
sumtcita (ri'a, ri'anai=E2=80=A6), whose host bridi's truth value is indepe=
ndent=20
from the sumtcita's, so that there couldn't exist an all-encompassing=20
cmavo for turning any predicate into the semantic equivalent of any=20
sumtcita clause.

Here is the basis for supposing that sumtcita can be split into two=20
categories, depending on whether they affect the truth value of the=20
outer bridi that hosts them so they couldn't be removed without changing=20
the sentence's meaning:

NON-SUBORDINATING/INDEPENDENT TAGS:
=E2=80=A2 {mi sipna ri'a lo nu tatpi} entails {mi sipna}.
=E2=80=A2 {mi sipna ri'a nai lo nu tatpi} entails {mi sipna}.
=E2=80=A2 {mi citka se pi'o lo forca} entails {mi citka}.
=E2=80=A2 {snime carvi ca nai lo nu critu} entails {snime carvi}.

SUBORDINATING TAGS:
=E2=80=A2 {mi sipna ka'e} doesn't entail {mi sipna}.
=E2=80=A2 {mi sipna ka'e nai} doesn't entail {mi sipna}.
=E2=80=A2 {mi sipna na ku} doesn't entail {mi sipna}.
=E2=80=A2 {mi sipna va'o lo nu tatpi} doesn't seem to entail {mi sipna} in=
=20
modern mainstream usage.

So it seems two versions of {xoi} would be needed for covering all these=20
cases.

This also raises the question of whether {fi'o} is subordinating, i.e.=20
whether {mi sipna fi'o se cumki} entails {mi sipna} or not.

mi'e la .ilmen. mu'o


On 21/07/2015 17:12, selpa'i wrote:
> la .guskant. cu cusku di'e
>>          (D) ma'a ca ro xavdei lo ka vokta'a cu simxu, soi ku'i na ku=20
>> 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=20
>> such
>>     that not every Lojbanist is such that their taking part in them=20
>> occurs
>>     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=20
> {xoi}. 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=20
> for the other and vice versa. There should really be two {xoi}. Let's=20
> call them {Pxoi} and {Nxoi}. There is an important difference between=20
> (E) and (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.