Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0t5JuW-0000ZOC; Tue, 17 Oct 95 23:51 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 7D9C25B7 ; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 22:50:59 +0100 Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 16:22:09 -0400 Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Subject: Relative clause paper, part 1 of 2 X-To: Lojban List To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 18692 Lines: 456 Relative Clauses, Which Make Sumti Even More Complicated $ Revision: $ 1. What Are You Pointing At? poi POI restrictive relative clause introducer ke'a GOhA relative pro-sumti ku'o KUhO relative clause terminator Let us think about the problem of what we are pointing at when we are pointing at something. In Lojban, we can refer to what we are pointing at by using the pro-sumti "ti" if it is nearby, or "ta" if it is somewhat further away, or "tu" if it is distant. (Pro-sumti are explained in full elsewhere.) However, even with the assistance of a pointing finger, or pointing lips, or whatever may be appropriate in the local culture, it is often hard to tell just what is being pointed at. Suppose one is pointing at a person, and says 1.1) ti cu barda This-one is-big. What is the referent of "ti"? Is it the person? Or perhaps it is the person's nose? Or even (for "ti" can be plural as well as singular, and mean "these ones" as well as "this one") the pores on the person's nose? To help solve this problem, Lojban allows a construction called a relative clause. Relative clauses are usually attached to the end of sumti, but there are other places where they can go as well, as explained later in this paper. A relative clause begins with a word of selma'o NOI, and ends with the elidable terminator "ku'o" (of selma'o KUhO). As you might suppose, "noi" is a cmavo of selma'o NOI; however, first we will discuss the cmavo "poi", which also belongs to selma'o NOI. In between the "poi" and the "ku'o" appears a full bridi, with the same syntax as any other bridi. Anywhere within the bridi of a relative clause, the pro-sumti "ke'a" (of selma'o KOhA) may be used, and it stands for the sumti to which the relative clause is attached. Here are some examples before we go any further: 1.2) ti poi ke'a prenu ku'o cu barda This-thing such-that( IT is-a-person ) is-large. This thing which is a person is big. This person is big. 1.3) ti poi ke'a nazbi ku'o cu barda This-thing such-that( IT is-a-nose ) is-large. This thing which is a nose is big. This nose is big. 1.4) ti poi ke'a nazbi kapkevna ku'o cu barda This-thing such-that( IT is-a-nose-type-of skin-hole ) is-big. These things which are nose-pores are big. These nose-pores are big. In the literal translations throughout this paper, the word IT, capitalized, is used to represent the cmavo "ke'a". In each case, it serves to represent the sumti (in Examples 1.2 through 1.4, the cmavo "ti") to which the relative clause is attached. Of course, there is no reason why "ke'a" needs to appear in the x1 place of a relative clause bridi; it can appear in any place, or indeed even in a sub-bridi within the relative clause bridi. Here are two more examples: 1.5) tu poi le mlatu pu lacpu ke'a ku'o cu ratcu That-distant-thing such-that( the cat [past] drags IT ) is-a-rat. That thing which the cat dragged is a rat. What the cat dragged is a rat. 1.6) ta poi mi djica le nu mi ponse ke'a [kei] ku'o cu bloti That-thing such-that( I desire the event-of( I own IT ) ) is-a-boat. That thing that I want to own is a boat. In Example 1.6, "ke'a" appears in an abstraction clause (abstractions are explained elsewhere) within a relative clause. As stated before, "ku'o" is an elidable terminator, and in fact it is almost always elidable. Throughout the rest of this paper, "ku'o" will not be written in any of the examples unless it is absolutely required. Furthermore, "ke'a" can often be omitted if its place is clear enough; thus, Example 1.2 can be written: 1.7) ti poi prenu cu barda That which is-a-person is-big. That person is big. without any change in meaning. Note that "poi" is translated "which" rather than "such-that" when "ke'a" has been omitted from the x1 place of the relative clause bridi; this change in annotation is solely to make the literal translations read more smoothly. 2. Incidental Relative Clauses noi NOI incidental relative clause introducer There are two basic kinds of relative clauses: restrictive relative clauses introduced by "poi", and incidental (sometimes called simply "non-restrictive") relative clauses introduced by "noi". The difference between restrictive and incidental relative clauses is that restrictive clauses provide essential information about the sumti to which they are attached, whereas incidental relative clauses provide additional information which is helpful to the listener but is not essential for identifying the referent of the sumti. All of the examples in Section 1 are restrictive relative clauses: the information in the relative clause is essential to identifying what the speaker is pointing to. Consider the following examples: 2.1) le gerku poi blanu cu barda The dog which is-blue is-large. The dog which is blue is large. 2.2) le gerku noi blanu cu barda The dog incidentally-which is-blue is-large. The dog, which is blue, is large. In Example 2.1, the information conveyed by "poi blanu" is essential to identifying the dog in question: it restricts the possible referents from dogs in general to dogs that are blue. This is why "poi" relative clauses are called restrictive. In Example 2.2, on the other hand, the dog which is referred to has already been identified clearly, and the relative clause "noi blanu" just provides additional information about it. In English, the distinction between restrictive and incidental relative clauses is expressed in writing by surrounding incidental, but not restrictive, clauses with commas. These commas are functioning as parentheses, because incidental relative clauses are essentially parenthetical. This distinction in punctuation is represented in speech by a difference in tone of voice. In addition, English restrictive relative clauses can be introduced by "that" as well as "which" and "who", whereas incidental relative clauses cannot begin with "that". Lojban, however, always uses the cmavo "poi" and "noi" rather than punctuation or intonation to make the distinction. Here are more examples of incidental relative clauses: 2.3) mi noi jdice cu zvati I who-incidentally am-a-judge am-at [some-place]. I, a judge, am present. In this example, "mi" is already sufficiently restricted, and any additional information is being provided solely for the listener's edification. 2.4) xu do viska le mi karce noi blabi [True?] You see my car incidentally-which is-white. Do you see my car, which is white? In Example 2.4, the speaker is presumed to have only one car, and is providing incidental information that it is white. Contrast Example 2.5 with a restrictive relative clause: 2.5) xu do viska le mi karce poi blabi [True?] You see my car which is-white. Do you see my car that is white? Do you see my white car? Here the speaker probably has several cars, and is restricting the referent of the sumti "le mi karce" (and thereby the listener's attention) to the white one only. Example 2.5 means much the same as Example 2.6, which does not use a relative clause: 2.6) xu do viska le mi blabi karce [True?] You see my white car. Do you see my white car? So a restrictive relative clause attached to a description can often mean the same as a description involving a tanru. However, "blabi karce", like all tanru, is somewhat vague: in principle, it might refer to a car which carries white things, or even express some more complicated concept involving whiteness and car-ness; the restrictive relative clause of Example 2.5 can only refer to a car which is white, not to any more complex or extended concept. 3. Relative Phrases pe GOI restrictive association po GOI restrictive possession po'e GOI restrictive intrinsic possession po'u GOI restrictive identification ne GOI incidental association no'u GOI incidental identification ge'u GEhU relative phrase terminator There are certain relative clauses whose selbri are frequently used in Lojban, and have short-cut means of expression using a relative phrase. Relative phrases are introduced by cmavo of selma'o GOI, and consist of a GOI cmavo followed by a single sumti. Each of them is exhibited below, paired with an example containing an equivalent relative clause. 3.1) le stizu pe mi cu blanu The chair associated-with me is-blue. My chair is blue. 3.2) le stizu poi ke'a srana mi cu blanu The chair such-that( IT is-associated-with me) is-blue. In Examples 3.1 and 3.2, the link between the chair and the speaker is of the loosest kind: 3.3) le stizu po mi cu xunre The chair specific-to me is red. 3.4) le stizu poi ke'a steci mi cu xunre The chair such-that (IT is-specific-to me) is-red. In Examples 3.3 and 3.4, on the other hand, the chair is more permanently connected with the speaker. A plausible (though not the only possible) contrast between Example 3.1 and Example 3.3 is that "pe mi" would be appropriate for a chair the speaker is currently sitting on (whether or not the speaker owned that chair), and "po mi" for a chair owned by the speaker (whether or not he or she was currently occupying it). As a result, the relationship expressed between two sumti by "po" is usually called "possession", although it does not necessarily imply ownership, legal or otherwise. 3.5) le birka po'e mi cu spofu The arm intrinsically-possessed-by me is-broken 3.6) le botpi po mi cu spofu The bottle specific-to me is-broken Examples 3.5 and 3.6 illustrate the contrast between two types of possession called "intrinsic" and "extrinsic", or sometimes "inalienable" and "alienable", respectively. Something is intrinsically (or inalienably) possessed by someone if the possession is part of the possessor, and cannot be changed without changing the possessor. In the case of Example 3.5, people are usually taken to intrinsically possess their arms: even if an arm is cut off, it remains the arm of that person. (If the arm is transplanted to another person, however, it becomes intrinsically possessed by the new user, though, so intrinsic possession is a matter of degree.) By contrast, the bottle of Example 3.6 can be given away, or thrown away, or lost, or stolen, so it is possessed extrinsically (alienably). The exact line between intrinsic and extrinsic possession is culturally dependent. Note that Example 3.5 can also be expressed without a relative clause: 3.7) le birka be mi cu spofu The arm of-body me is broken reflecting the fact that the gismu "birka" has an x2 place representing the body to which the arm belongs. Many, but not all, cases of intrinsic possession can be thus covered without using "po'e". 3.8) le gerku po'u le mi pendo cu cinba mi The dog which-is my friend kisses me. 3.9) le gerku poi du le mi pendo cu cinba mi The dog which = my friend kisses me. The cmavo "po'u" does not represent possession at all, but rather identity. (Note that it means "poi du" and its form was chosen to suggest the relationship.) In Example 3.8, the use of "po'u" tells us that "le gerku" and "le mi pendo" represent the same thing. Consider the contrast between Example 3.8 and: 3.10) le mi pendo po'u le gerku cu cinba mi My friend which-is the dog kisses me. The facts of the case are the same, but the emphasis is different; whatever is attached with "po'u" is considered less important. This principle applies to all the GOI cmavo, and allows for the possibility of odd effects: 3.11) le kabri pe le mi pendo cu cmalu The cup associated-with my friend is small. My cup is small 3.12) le mi pendo pe le kabri cu cmalu My friend associated-with the cup is small. Example 3.11 is useful in a context which is about my friend, and states that his or her cup is small, whereas Example 3.12 is useful in a context that is primarily about a certain cup, and makes a claim about "my friend of the cup", as opposed to some other friend of mine. Here the cup appears to "possess" the person! English can't even express this relationship as a possessive expression -- "the cup's friend of mine"? -- but Lojban has no trouble doing so. The cmavo "ne" and "no'u" stand to "pe" and "po'u", respectively, as "noi" does to "poi" -- they provide incidental information: 3.13) le blabi gerku ne do cu batci mi The white dog, incidentally-associated-with you, bites me. The white dog, which is yours, bites me. In Example 3.13, the white dog is already fully identified; the fact that it is yours is merely incidental to the main bridi claim. Distinguishing between "po'u" and "no'u" can be a little tricky. Consider a room with two men in it, Frank and Jim. If you don't know their names, I might say: 3.14) le vi nanmu no'u la djim. cu terpemci The [short distance] man, incidentally-who-is Jim, is-a-poet. This man, Jim, is a poet. Here I am saying that one of the men is a poet, and incidentally telling you that he is Jim. But if you do know the names, then 3.15) le vi nanmu po'u la djim. cu terpemci The [short distance] man who-is Jim is-a-poet. This man, namely Jim, is a poet. Now I am using the fact that the man I am speaking of is identical to Jim as information for picking out which man I mean. Finally, the elidable terminator for GOI cmavo is "ge'u" of selma'o GEhU; it is almost never required. (What about the cmavo after which selma'o GOI is named? It is discussed elsewhere, as it is not semantically akin to the other kinds of relative phrases, although the syntax is the same.) 4. Multiple Relative Clauses: "zi'e" zi'e ZIhE relative clause joiner Sometimes it is necessary or useful to attach more than one relative clause to a sumti. This is made possible in Lojban by the cmavo "zi'e" (of selma'o ZIhE), which is used to join one or more relative clauses together into a single unit, thus making them apply to the same sumti. For example: 4.1) le gerku poi blabi zi'e poi le nanmu batci ke'a cu klama The dog which( is-white) and such-that( the man bites IT) goes. The dog which is white and which the man bites is going. The most usual translation of "zi'e" in English is "and", but "zi'e" is not really a logical connective: unlike most of the true logical connectives (which are explained elsewhere), it cannot be converted into a logical connection between sentences. It is perfectly correct to use "zi'e" to connect relative clauses of different kinds: 4.2) le gerku poi blabi zi'e noi mi pendo ponse cu klama The dog which-is( white) and incidentally-such-that( my friend owns) goes. The dog which is white, and which my friend owns, is going. In Example 4.2, the restrictive clause "poi blabi" specifies which dog is referred to, but the incidental clause "noi mi pendo ponse" is mere incidental information: the listener is supposed to already have identified the dog from the "poi blabi". Of course, the meaning (though not necessarily the emphasis) is the same if the incidental clause appears first. It is also possible to connect relative phrases with "zi'e", or a relative phrase with a relative clause: 4.3) le botpi po mi zi'e poi blanu cu spofu The bottle specific-to me and which-is blue is-broken. My blue bottle is broken. Note that if the colloquial translation of Example 4.3 were "My bottle, which is blue, is broken", then "noi" rather than "poi" would have been correct in the Lojban version, since that version of the English implies that you do not need to know the bottle is blue. As written, Example 4.3 suggests that I probably have more than one bottle, and the one in question needs to be picked out as the blue one. 4.4) mi zutse le stizu pe mi zi'e po do zi'e poi xunre I sit-in the chair associated-with me and specific-to you and which-is red. Example 4.4 illustrates that more than two relative phrases or clauses can be connected with "zi'e". It almost defies colloquial translation because of the very un-English contrast between "pe mi", implying that the chair is temporarily connected with me, and "po do", implying that the chair has a more permanent association with you. (Perhaps I am a guest in your house, in which case the chair would naturally be your property.) 5. Non-Veridical Relative Clauses: "voi" voi NOI non-veridical relative clause introducer There is another member of selma'o NOI which serves to introduce a third kind of relative clause: "voi". Relative clauses introduced by "voi" are restrictive, like those introduced by "poi". However, there is a fundamental difference between "poi" and "voi" relative clauses. A "poi" relative clause is said to be veridical, in the same sense that a description using "lo" or "loi" is: it is essential to the interpretation that the bridi actually be true. For example: 5.1) le gerku poi blabi cu klama The dog which is-white goes. it must actually be true that the dog is white, or the sentence constitutes a miscommunication. If there is a white dog and a brown dog, and the speaker uses "le gerku" to refer to the brown dog, then the listener will not understand correctly. However, 5.2) le gerku voi blabi cu gerku the dog which-I-describe-as white goes puts the listener on notice that the dog in question may not actually be white: only the speaker can say for sure. In this way, "voi" is like "le"; the speaker's intention determines the meaning. As a result, the following two sentences 5.3) le nanmu cu ninmu That-which-I-describe-as a-man is-a-woman. 5.4) ti voi nanmu cu ninmu This-thing which-I-describe-as a-man is-a-woman. mean essentially the same thing (except that Example 5.5 involves pointing thanks to the use of "ti", whereas Example 5.4 doesn't), and neither one is self-contradictory: it is perfectly all right to describe something as a man (although perhaps confusing to the listener) even if it actually is a woman. 6. Relative Clauses And Descriptors -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban.