Date: Mon, 3 Aug 92 02:41:09 -0400 From: lojbab@grebyn.com (Logical Language Group) Message-Id: <9208030641.AA22089@daily.grebyn.com> To: 70674.1215@compuserve.com, I.Alexander.bra0122@oasis.icl.co.uk, c.j.fine@bradford.ac.uk, cowan@snark.thyrsus.com, nsn@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au, shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu, vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi Content-Length: 14996 Lines: 304 Proposed Changes 1-21 to 2nd Baseline Lojban Grammar (Part 2 - 20-21) CHANGE 20 CURRENT LANGUAGE: Relative clauses on descriptions are grouped by the parser so as to attach to sumti before outside quantifiers are put on. The actual semantics of what is being attached has been pragmatically determined, and analysis has now shown that this can theoretically be vague/ambiguous or even limiting to expression in the language, though workarounds probably exist for all problems raised. PROPOSED CHANGE: Allow the distinction between a relative clause attaching to the "inside set", excluding external quantifiers, of a description. A relative clause outside the KU will refer to the entire sumti. A relative clause inside the KU will generally be preposed so as to parallel the historical pseudo-possessive which is recognized as a transformation of an inside-set relative clause. Variations of this proposal will retain or prohibit postposed relative clauses inside the KU in some or all structures. Comparable expansion of the relative clause possibilites inside vocatives is incorporated in this proposal. RATIONALE: The current grammar appears to group relative clauses with the "inside set" of a description sumti, that portion of a sumti including from the LE to the KU which includes the inside quantifier and not the outside quantifier. In the case of non-restrictive "lo" descriptions, and possibly some others, this is not what is intended. Example: "pa lo sipna noi melbi" groups as "pa " apparently claiming that all sleepers are beautiful. The problem manifests itself in various forms more completely documented in a long paper by Colin Fine, but the bottom line is that the existing grammar is vague as to what a relative clause attaches to, and there are definable cases where this vagueness can lead to unacceptable ambiguity. The proposed solution has the secondary virtues of 1) making pseudo-possessives visibly match the parallel inside-set relative clauses, but without overt relative clause marking; 2) making it obvious how to to express a pseudo-possessive with a quantifier ("le ci mi broda" is a complete sentence and not a sumti, since "le ci mi" is a complete sumti. With preposed inside-set relative clauses, "le pecimi broda" is unambiguously a sumti.); and 3) the problematical [quantifier] [quantifier] [description] is eliminated from the language (analysis can give a meaning for this expression of [quantifier] lo [quantifier] lo [description], and it has even been used once or twice, but experience has shown that the analysis is counterintuitive to many people, who see also [quantifier1] lo [description] [quantifier2]-mei as plausible). Options relating to allowing postposed relative clauses inside the KU (referring to inside-sets, and thus parallelling the preposed equivalent) lead to a complicated tradeoff, which is left for the community to resolve. Option 3) is believed closest to the current grammar and semantics, and is the default selection. 1) If postposed inside relatives are allowed in all descriptions, then the preposed/postposed distinction becomes a forethought/afterthought distinction, which can be valuable. It also makes existing texts retain their currently official inside-relative interpretation (unless the KU is explicitly present, a rarity), which is arguably desirable as the default (though it must be recognized that there are text examples where the speaker obviously wanted to apply the relative clause to the externally quantified sumti.) The negative tradeoff of this is that KU becomes ALWAYS required when you want an external relative clause. 2) If postposed inside relatives are never allowed, then all existing usages will become parsed as external relatives whether or not a KU is present. This is probably equally valid as 1) as a default, and makes a simpler, easier-to-teach grammar, since one learns the rule: prepose inside, postpose outside. The negative tradeoffs are that this eliminates the forethought/afterthought distinction, forcing the speaker to form all inside restrictions before starting the description, and that somewhat more of older texts will be misinterpreted under the new parse. 3) A third option is to allow postposed inside relatives ONLY when there is an inside quantifier. A negative is that it seems counterintuitive that this would handle almost all problems with existing texts, but in fact it appears to do so. The other negative is that "lo broda noi/poi brode" (external relative) would have a different parse than "su'o lo ro broda noi/poi broda" (internal relative), which is merely the same sumti with implicit quanifiers made explicit. This could make it more difficult to teach, though it might make natural expression easier if relative clauses end up grouping correctly most often without the KU. A note applicable to all options is that preposed relative clauses (but not relative phrases) will almost always require a terminator, though monosyllabic "vau" is usually as applicable as "ku'o". This weakens the use of vau as a (rarely needed) terminator of sumti strings/sentences (which might cause reviewers of this proposal to ask for consideration of reversing ku'o and vau - a more major change in that it affects much documentation and text, but puts the mono-syllables where they are needed). Since preposed relative clauses require a terminator, it would be useful to allow the afterthough construction per 1) or 3) which does not require a terminator (but may require explicit KU too often, especially in option 1). The following analyzes all definite and indefinite cases per option 3) giving English translations of the examples to show that the Lojban interpretation is natural at least for English speakers (recognizing that it may not be so for others). Descriptor External internal noi/poi quantifier quantifier present present le no no poi le sipna poi melbi [ro (le su'o sipna ku)] poi melbi The sleepers who are beautiful... le no no noi le sipna noi melbi [ro (le su'o sipna ku)] noi melbi The sleepers, who are beautiful... le no yes poi le ci sipna poi melbi ro (le ci sipna poi melbi ku) The 3 sleepers who are beautiful... le no yes noi le ci sipna noi melbi ro (le ci sipna noi melbi ku) The 3 sleepers, who are beautiful... le yes no poi ci le sipna poi melbi [ci (le su'oci sipna ku)] poi melbi 3 of the sleepers who are beautiful... (the English is ambiguous as to whether all of the sleepers are beautiful or just the 3. The Lojban is unambiguously talking only about the 3, but since there is no internal quantifier there is no secondary focus on the inside set) le yes no noi ci le sipna noi melbi [ci (le su'oci sipna ku)] noi melbi 3 of the sleepers, who are beautiful... (The English is again ambiguous but more plausibly suggests merely the 3). le yes yes poi re le ci sipna poi melbi re (le ci sipna poi melbi ku) re le ci sipna ku poi melbi [re (le ci sipna ku)] poi melbi Two of the 3 sleepers who are beautiful... (The English is totally ambiguous as to what is being restricted, and the Lojban in this case makes the distinction based on presence of the ku, forcing the speaker to think about the distinction when important.) le yes yes noi re le ci sipna noi melbi re (le ci sipna noi melbi ku) re le ci sipna ku noi melbi [re (le ci sipna ku)] noi melbi Two of the 3 sleepers, who are beautiful... (The English is totally ambiguous as to which sleepers are beautiful, and the Lojban in this case makes the distinction based on presence of the ku, forcing the speaker to think about the distinction when important.) lo no no poi lo sipna poi melbi [su'o (lo ro sipna ku)] poi melbi Sleepers who are beautiful... lo no no noi lo sipna noi melbi [su'o (lo ro sipna ku)] noi melbi Sleepers, who are beautiful... lo no yes poi lo ci sipna poi melbi su'o (lo ci sipna poi melbi ku) At least one of the 3 in the universe that sleep who are beautiful... (Unusual in English, but unambiguous because of "are" agreement; the following gives a more likely example:) lomi ci cukta poi melbi su'o (lomi ci cukta poi melbi ku) At least one of my 3 books that are beautiful... (The essential point is that quantifiying the inside set emphasizes it so that the restriction applying to it seems natural - natural enough that English requires forcing an indefinite description if there is an inside quantifier.) lo no yes noi lo ci sipna noi melbi su'o (lo ci sipna noi melbi ku) At least one of the 3 in the universe that sleep, who are beautiful... (Extremely rare in English since it makes a universal claim about about number and incidental property, but unambiguous because of "are" agreement.) lo yes no poi ci lo sipna poi melbi [ci (lo rosu'oci sipna ku)] poi melbi 3 sleepers who are beautiful... (With no inside quantifier, the English becomes an indefinite, and there is no suggestion that there is an inside-set, much less that the relative clause relates to it. Likewise in the Lojban which reduces to the indefinite ci sipna poi melbi (which under this change will have the ku after the melbi to separate from other sumti) The Lojban is unambiguously talking only about the 3, since there is no internal quantifier to put secondary focus on the inside set) There is a stilted English form that can force the theoretical ambiguity to the fore: ?Three of sleepers who are beautiful... which does ambiguously suggest the inside-set is the restricted one, but we would normally expect this to be expressed: Three of those sleepers who are beautiful... which clearly has an internal restriction and could not be easily modelled under 3) in Lojban, requiring preposed relatives or explicit internal quantification to force the relative clause inside ci lo ro sipna poi melbi ci (lo ro sipna poi melbi) which I would contend is a better reflection of the English "those" anyway. lo yes no noi ci lo sipna noi melbi [ci (lo rosu'oci sipna ku)] noi melbi 3 sleepers, who are beautiful... (The English again becomes an indefinite and the incidental clause goes outside. This time, even the English "those" form remains ambiguous and odd-sounding ?3 of sleepers, who are beautiful... ?3 of those sleepers, who are beautiful... unless you go to 3 who sleep, who are beautiful... which is better reflected in Lojban as ci da poi sipna zi'e noi melbi which accurately puts the relative clause outside or 3 of those who sleep, who are beautiful which only forces the English back into ambiguity as to which are beautiful lo yes yes poi re lo ci sipna poi melbi re (lo ci sipna poi melbi ku) re lo ci sipna ku poi melbi [re (lo ci sipna ku)] poi melbi Two of 3 sleepers who are beautiful... (The English is totally ambiguous as to what is being restricted, and the Lojban in this case makes the distinction based on presence of the ku, forcing the speaker to think about the distinction when important.) lo yes yes noi re lo ci sipna noi melbi re (lo ci sipna noi melbi ku) re lo ci sipna ku noi melbi [re (lo ci sipna ku)] noi melbi Two of 3 sleepers, who are beautiful... (The unlikely English is totally ambiguous as to which sleepers are beautiful, and the Lojban in this case makes the distinction based on presence of the ku, forcing the speaker to think about the distinction when important.) IMPORTANT NOTE: Change 20 is sufficiently major, affecting nearly all of the sumti grammar rules, that there may be unforeseen side effects. This seems unlikely, as analysis so far has shown that the only reduction in expression is the confusing [quantifier] [quantifier] [description] which has a much clearer equivalent. However, the introduction of such a major change at this late stage of the project makes it highly controversial, as any problems may show up too late to be easily fixed (i.e. after books are published). CHANGE 21 PROPOSED CHANGE Allow nesting of relative clauses, distinct from ZIhEK grouping which retains relative clauses at the same level (commutative and associative, with all restrictions taking place before non-restrictive uses). RATIONALE This change is mostly made moot by the addition of both inside and outside relative clauses, which probably renders the NEED for nesting to be negligible. It is argued that natural language speakers will process relative clauses as they come to them, making zi'e grouping unnatural if in keeping with the logical aspects of the language. (Actual Lojban usage suggests that people will prefer to put goi assignments, which are non-restrictive, closer to the sumti than restrictive ones, even when the wish the assignment to include the restriction.) The advantages are that nesting allows variable assignment to intermediate restrictions: lo sipna goi ko'a poi melbi goi ko'e poi mi nelci [ke'a] goi ko'i (ke'a in this case would seem to be the same as ko'e, requiring ke'axire to get the equivalent of ko'a if it was useful for some reason. Another argument is that "voi" restrictive clauses, which are intensional would be implicitly nested, but as yet there has been no example of a multiple voi relative clause to support this since "voi" is new in the language and seldom-used at all. Thus the bottom line is that some would like this option, and it is an expansion of the language that dovetails well with Change 20.