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>
 <55AE616F.9040509@gmx.de> <55C132F0.20008@gmail.com>
From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <55C23DA9.80303@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 18:45:29 +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: <55C132F0.20008@gmail.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: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

la .ilmen. cu cusku di'e
> 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}.

(Quoting Ilmen, but making a general comment)

One issue with any sentence containing abstractions is that they can
carry an implicit {da'i}, which sometimes gets (again, implicitly)
applied to the main bridi. With certain tags this is more common than
with others, but the possibility is always there.

However, assuming {da'i nai} in all the above abstractions (and main
bridi), the entailment should be a logical one.

For example, I understand {mi sipna ri'a lo nu tatpi} as expanding as
follows:

     mi sipna ri'a lo nu tatpi
     lo nu mi sipna cu fasnu gi'e se rinka lo nu tatpi

In other words, the tag operates on the same level as the main bridi,
and their relationship is that of logical AND. The entire sentence thus
claims the conjunction of the two connnectands and nothing else. (and=20
this is also how Pxoi would work)

When a negation precedes the sentence, then the negation negates the
conjunction only:

     na ku mi sipna ri'a lo nu tatpi
     na ku lo nu mi sipna cu fasnu gi'e se rinka lo nu tatpi

Which leaves open whether or not any sleeping occured. All we know is
that if sleeping occured it was not caused by being tired.

Of course, *if* there is a {da'i}, then it becomes less clear, and the
realis-ness of the main bridi then might depend on the semantics of the
tag. In usage there is usually a difference in interpretation between
{mi pacna lo nu da'i ricfu} ({mi pacna} is asserted) and {mi klama va'o
lo nu da'i do kansa mi} ({mi klama} is often not understood to be
asserted), even though both have a {da'i}.

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.