From cowan  Sat Mar  6 22:55:34 2010
Subject: Re: {soi}
To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List)
From: cowan
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 14:09:34 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <199509231209.IAA29388@locke.ccil.org> from "ucleaar" at Sep 23, 95 12:50:08 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length:       2575
Status: OR
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Sep 25 14:09:34 1995
X-From-Space-Address: cowan
Message-ID: <RyMVXrCX9uE.A.MGB.m30kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

la .and. cusku di'e

> la djan cusku die [incidentally, if John is {djan}, and Jen
> is {djen}, what is Jan? Are Jan & Jen homophonous in Gen.
> American? Ah, no, Jan would be {dji,yn} wouldn't it, because
> Ann is homophonous with Ian.]

Well, in my dialect "John" is [dZAn], "Jen" is [dZEn], and "Jan" is
[dZ&n].  Only in 2nd-vowel-shifted dialects is "Ann" [i:,@n]; for me it
is [&:n].  In the South, of course, [En] > [In], so "Jen" is [dZIn].

> Perhaps this relates to the issue of how anaphoric references to
> pluralities work: does {re prenu cu prami py} mean they each love
> themself, or does it mean they each love each of them? I think
> Jorge & others were debating this for each of the systems of
> anaphora, but I forget (or never knew) what the upshot was.

Me either.

> Does it refer (in some sense) to a previous word/phrase? Or does it
> refer to the referent of a specific previous word/phrase? Or does it
> refer to an individual (typically not a word) that has already been
> referred to? If the last of these, then it ought to be possible to
> use a {le} or {la} expression within {soi ... seu}. I gather from
> what you say that that should indeed be possible.

I take it that strictly it refers to a >place<, a terbridi; but that
an anaphoric reference to the occupant of the place should do.

> I discern an ambiguity in the (English) use of "sumti" here. On the
> one hand it usually means "syntactic argument" or "semantic argument",
> while on the other hand it here means something more like "nominal
> expression", "NP" rather than "S", an expression with type <e> rather
> than type <t>.

Yes, English "sumti" tends to mean "NP".

> > Not all sumti that refer to other sumti are lexical items;
> > "le se go'i"; "le go'e", etc.
> 
> But they're still lexical: they're {lo valsi}, albeit not {pa valsi}.

Then I'm still more confused.  Everything that can be said is {lo valsi};
what would be a non-lexical occupant?

> > > And is that 'reference' in the sense of 'referent'
> > > or in the sense of 'cross-reference/pointer'?
> > I'm not sure I can make this distinction.
> 
> In a book most words refer to something (in the sense of building up
> a communicable picture of the world), but only expressions like
> "see page 30" are cross-references/pointers.

Yes, I grasp this point, but I'm not sure how the distinction applies.

> "Selbri" denotes a syntactic funtion, the grammatical predicate,
> and "brivla" denotes words that can function as "selbri".

This is correct.

-- 
John Cowan					cowan@ccil.org
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.