From cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.bitnet!LOJBAN Thu Aug 13 18:31:45 1992 Return-Path: Date: Thu Aug 13 18:31:45 1992 Message-Id: <9208121455.AA01274@relay1.UU.NET> Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: Cowan's responses to comments on changes 1-21 X-To: C.J.Fine@bradford.ac.uk X-Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: CJ FINE's message of Tue, 11 Aug 92 12:15:26 BST <12005.9208111115@mail.bradford.ac.uk> Status: RO >From: CJ FINE >Date: Tue, 11 Aug 92 12:15:26 BST >X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] >Mark replies to Cowan: >> >> >Relative clauses vs. logical connectives: I don't agree that it makes sense >> >to attach a relative clause to logically connected sumti. Remember that >> >logical connection expands to separate sentences. If this really needs to >> >be done, use LAhE. >> >> Oh, no. It is *very* sensible. I ran into it when I started playing with >> the Tower of Babel story. Remember you asked me to do that one, John? >> Well, I've been lazy about it, but I did start. If you check your text, >> God descended to see "the city and the tower which the sons of Man had >> built." I think we'd all agree that that's a *very* natural construction, >> and that "which the sons of Man had built" obviously applies to both the >> city and the tower. Logically (and non-logically, for that matter) >> conjoined sumti are as natural to language as simple ones, and are as >> likely to be relativized as a unit. I used a LUhI/LUhU set to handle this >> case, as {lu'a le tcadu .e le kamju lu'u poi loi remna cu zbasu} (I thought >> the logical {.e} worked here, but maybe not...). It could be that termsets >> are the best answer to this type of problem, but it is not true that this >> type of construction is nonsensical or uncommon. >But John specifically referred to "logical connectvies" and your example >is better translated with a non-logical. Well, allowing one entails allowing the other, so it amounts to the same thing. And I did consider using a non-logical (perhaps {ce}), though I figured that the observation could be independent, simply "seeing one" and "seeing the other", as if in two sentences, and thus using the logical {.e}. Stylistic point of contention, of course, and I'm open to correction. >Nonetheless, I agree with you - a logical .e is possible there, though I >don't think it is a good translation; and in any case, there are plenty >of examples with .a or .onai >mu'ulu<< mi darno viska le xirma .onai le xasli .i lesego'i cu lacpu le >karce >>li'u >eg " I see far off a horse or donkey(. It's) pulling a cart" >This is one way to say it, and there is another with a connection inside >the description, "le xirma jonai xasli noi lacpu le karce", but I don't >know how to get it with connected sumti and a noi, which is what I want >to use. (The lojban above does not express whether the second sentence >is restrictive or incidental). The only way, currently, to do it is using LUhI/LUhU. Pick the one that makes the most sense. I'd go with {lu'a}. Thus: mi darno viska lu'a le xirma .onai le xasli lu'u poi/noi ke'a lacpu le karce Simple enough, but I suspect common enough to warrant finding a way to do it without the lu'a and unelidable lu'u. Can our tired, overworked {bo} help? No, I think it's already in use in that place.... >kolin ~mark