From cowan Sat Mar 6 22:47:38 2010 Subject: Relative clause paper, part 2 of 2 To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List) From: cowan Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 16:22:43 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 17784 Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Tue Oct 17 16:22:43 1995 X-From-Space-Address: cowan Message-ID: So far, this paper has described the various kinds of relative clauses (including relative phrases). The list is now complete, and the rest of the paper will be concerned with the syntax of sumti that include relative clauses. So far, all relative clauses have appeared directly after the sumti to which they are attached. This is the most common position (and originally the only one), but a variety of other placements are also possible which produce a variety of semantic effects. There are actually three places where a relative clause can be attached to a description sumti: after the descriptor ("le", "lo", or whatever), after the embedded selbri but before the elidable terminator (which is "ku"), and after the "ku". The relative clauses attached to descriptors that we have seen have occupied the second position. Thus Example 5.1, if written out with all elidable terminators, would appear as: 6.1) le gerku poi blabi ku'o ku cu klama vau the( dog which( is-white ) ) goes. The dog which is white is going. Here "ku'o" is the terminator paired with "poi" and "ku" with "le", and "vau" is the terminator of the whole bridi. When a simple descriptor like "le gerku" has a relative clause attached, it is purely a matter of style and emphasis where the relative clause should go. Therefore, the following examples are all equivalent in meaning to Example 6.1: 6.2) le poi blabi ku'o gerku cu klama The such-that (it-is-white) dog igoes. 6.3) le gerku ku poi blabi cu klama The( dog ) which is-white goes. Example 6.1 will seem most natural to speakers of languages like English, which always puts relative clauses after the noun phrases they are attached to; Example 6.2, on the other hand, may seem more natural to Finnish or Chinese speakers, who put the relative clause first. Note that in Example 6.2, the elidable terminator "ku'o" must appear, or the selbri of the relative clause ("blabi") will merge with the selbri of the description ("gerku"). The purpose of the form appearing in Example 6.3 will be apparent shortly. As is explained in detail elsewhere, two different numbers (known as the "inner quantifier" and the "outer quantifier" can be attached to a description. The inner quantifier specifies how many things the descriptor refers to: it appears between the descriptor and the description selbri. The outer quantifier appears before the descriptor, and specifies how many of the things referred to by the descriptor are involved in this particular bridi. In the following example, 6.4) re le mu prenu cu klama le zarci Two-of the five persons go to-the market. Two of the five people [that I have in mind] are going to the market. "mu" is the inner quantifier and "re" is the outer quantifier. Now what is meant by attaching a relative clause to the sumti "re le mu prenu"? Suppose the relative clause is "poi pu sipna" (meaning "who slept"). Now the three possible attachment points discussed previously take on significance. 6.5) re le poi pu sipna ku'o mu prenu cu klama le zarci Two of the such-that( [past] sleep ) five persons go to-the market. 6.6) re le mu prenu poi pu sipna [ku] cu klama le zarci Two of the (five persons which [past] sleep) go to-the market. 6.7) re le mu prenu ku poi pu sipna cu klama le zarci (Two of the five persons ) which [past] sleep go to-the market. As the parentheses show, Example 6.6 means that all five of the persons were sleeping (at some point in the past), whereas Example 6.7 means only that the two who are going to the market were sleeping. (The possibility that the other three were also sleeping is not excluded.) How do we remember which is which? If the relative clause comes after the explicit "ku", as in Example 6.7, then only the sumti as a whole is qualified by the relative clause. If there is no "ku", or if the relative clause comes before an explicit "ku", then the relative clause is understood to apply to everything which the underlying selbri applies to. What about Example 6.5? By convention, it means the same as Example 6.7, and it requires no "ku", but it does typically require a "ku'o" instead. Note that the relative clause comes before the inner quantifier. When "le" is the descriptor being used, and the sumti has no no explicit outer quantifier, then the outer quantifier is understood to be "ro" (meaning "all"), as is explained elsewhere. In that case, there is no difference between a relative clause after the "ku" or before it. However, if the descriptor is "lo", the difference is quite important: 6.8) lo prenu ku noi blabi cu klama le zarci (some persons) incidentally-which are-white go to-the market. 6.9) lo prenu noi blabi [ku] cu klama le zarci some (persons incidentally-which are-white) go to-the market. Both Examples 68 and 6.9 tell us that one or more persons are going to the market. However, they make very different incidental claims. Example 6.8 merely tells us that those persons, whoever they might be, are white; Example 6.9 claims that all persons (since "lo prenu" means "lo ro prenu", some of all the persons that there are) are white! This is plainly false. The safe strategy, therefore, is to always use "ku" when attaching a "noi" relative clause to a "lo" descriptor. Otherwise we may end up claiming far too much. Finally, so-called indefinite sumti like "re karce", which means the same as "re lo karce" (which in turn means the same as "re lo ro karce"), can have relative clauses attached; these are taken to be of the outside-the-"ku" variety. Here is an example: 6.10) mi ponse re karce [ku] poi xekri I possess two cars which-are black. The restrictive relative clause only affects the two cars being affected by the main bridi, not all cars that exist. It is ungrammatical to try to place a relative clause within an indefinite sumti (that is, before an explicitly expressed terminating "ku".) 7. Possessive sumti In Examples 2.4 through 2.6, the sumti "le mi karce" appears, glossed as "my car". Although it might not seem so, this sumti actually contains a relative phrase. When a sumti appears between a descriptor and its description selbri, it is actually a "pe" relative phrase. So 7.1) le mi karce cu xunre my car is-red. and 7.2) le pe mi karce cu xunre the (associated-with me) car is-red. mean exactly the same thing. Furthermore, since there are no special considerations of quantifiers here, 7.3) le karce pe mi cu xunre The car associated-with me is-red means the same thing as well. A sumti like the one in Example 7.1 is called a "possessive sumti". Of course, it does not really indicate possession in the sense of ownership, but like "pe" relative phrases, indicates only weak association. The inner sumti, "mi" in Example 7.1, is correspondingly called the "possessor sumti". Historically, possessive sumti existed before any other kind of relative phrase or clause, and was retained when the machinery of relative phrases and clauses as detailed in this paper so far was slowly built up. When preposed relative clauses of the Example 7.2 type were devised, possessive sumti were most easily viewed as a special case of them. Although any sumti, however complex, can appear in a full-fledged relative phrase, only simple sumti can appear as possessor sumti, without a "pe". Roughly speaking, the legal possessor sumti are: pro-sumti, quotations, names and descriptions, and numbers (although the last category makes little sense). In addition, the possessor sumti may not be preceded by a quantifier, as such a form would be interpreted as the unusual "descriptor + quantifier + sumti" type of description. All these sumti forms are explained in full elsewhere. Here is an example of a description used in a possessive sumti: 7.4) le le nanmu ku karce cu blanu The (associated-with-the man) car is blue. The man's car is blue. Note the explicit "ku" at the end of the possessor sumti, which prevents the selbri of the possessor sumti from merging with the selbri of the main description sumti. Because of the need for this "ku", the most common kind of possessor sumti are pro-sumti, especially personal pro-sumti, which require no elidable terminator. A possessive sumti may also have regular relative clauses attached to it. If attached before or after the terminating "ku", then the relative clause has its usual meaning. However, a relative clause immediately following the possessor sumti is understood to affect the possessor sumti, not the possessive. For example: 7.5) le mi noi sipna karce cu na klama The of-me incidentally-which( is-sleeping) car isn't going. means that my car isn't going; the incidental claim of "noi sipna" applies to me, not my car, however. If I wanted to say that the car is sleeping (whatever that might mean) I would need: 7.6) le mi karce poi sipna cu na klama The of-me car which sleeps isn't going. 8. Relative Clauses And Complex Sumti: "vu'o" vu'o VUhO relative clause attacher Normally, relative clauses attach only to simple sumti or parts of sumti: pro-sumti, names and descriptions, pure numbers, and quotations. There is not too much use for relative clauses attached to pure numbers; an incidental relative clause attached to a quotation, as in: 8.1) lu mi klama le zarci li'u noi mi cusku ke'a cu jufra [quote] I go to-the market [unquote] incidentally-which( I express IT) is-a-sentence. may serve to identify the author of the quotation or some other relevant, but subsidiary, fact about it. All such relative clauses appear only after the simple sumti, never before it. In addition, sumti with attached sumti qualifiers of selma'o LAhE or NAhE+BO (which are explained in detail elsewhere) can have a relative clause appearing after the qualifier and before the qualified sumti, as in: 8.2) la'e poi to'ercitno lu le xunre cmaxirma li'u cu zvati le vu kumfa A-referent-of (which is-old) [quote] The Red Small-horse [unquote] is-at the [far distance] room. An old "The Red Pony" is in the far room. Example 8.2 is a bit complex, and may need some picking apart. The quotation "lu le xunre cmaxirma li'u" means the string of words "The Red Pony". If the "la'e" at the beginning of the sentence were omitted, Example 8.2 would claim that a certain string of words is in a room distant from the speaker. But obviously a string of words can't be in a room! The effect of the "la'e" is to modify the sumti so that it refers not to the words themselves, but to the referent of those words, a novel by John Steinbeck (presumably in Lojban translation). The particular copy of "The Red Pony" is identified by the restrictive relative clause. Example 8.2 means exactly the same as: 8.3) la'e lu le xunre cmaxirma li'u poi to'ercitno cu zvati le kumfa A-referent-of [quote] The Red Small-horse [unquote] which is-old is-at the [far distance] room. and the two sentences can be considered stylistic variants. Sometimes, however, it is important to make a relative clause apply to the whole of a more complex sumti, one which involves logical or non-logical connection. For example, 8.4) la frank. .e la djordj. noi nanmu cu klama le zdani Frank and George incidentally-who is-a-man go to-the house. Frank and George, who is a man, go to the house. The incidental claim in Example 8.4 is not that Frank and George are men, but only that Frank is a man, because the incidental relative clause attaches only to "la djordj", the immediately preceding simple sumti. To make a relative clause attach to both parts of the logically connected sumti in Example 8.4, a new cmavo is needed, "vu'o" (of selma'o VUhO). It is placed between the sumti and the relative clause, and extends the sphere of influence of that relative clause to the entire preceding sumti, including however many logical or non-logical connectives there may be. 8.5) la frank. .e la djordj. vu'o noi nanmu cu klama le zdani Frank and George incidentally-who are-men go to-the house. Frank and George, who are men, go to the house. The presence of "vu'o" here means that the relative clause "noi nanmu" extends to the entire logically connected sumti "la frank. .e la djordj."; in other words, both Frank and George are claimed to be men, as the colloquial translation shows. 9. Relative Clauses In Vocative Phrases Vocative phrases are explained in full elsewhere. Briefly, they are a method of indicating who a sentence or discourse is addressed to: of identifying the intended listener. They take three general forms, all beginning with cmavo from selma'o COI or DOI (called "vocative words"; there can be one or many), followed by either a name, a selbri, or a sumti. Here are three examples: 9.1) coi. frank. Hello, Frank. 9.2) co'o xirma Goodbye, horse. 9.3) fi'i la frank. .e. la djordj. Welcome, Frank and George! Note that Example 9.2 says farewell to something which doesn't really have to be a horse, something that the speaker simply thinks of as being a horse, since it is equivalent to: 9.4) co'o le xirma Goodbye, that-which-I-describe-as a-horse. Similarly, Example 9.1 can be thought of as an abbreviation of: 9.5) coi la frank. Hello, the-one-named "Frank". Syntactically, vocative phrases are a kind of free modifier, and can appear in many places in Lojban text, generally at the beginning or end of some complete construct; or, as in Examples 9.1 to 9.3, as sentences by themselves. As can be seen, the form of vocative phrases is similar to that of sumti, and as you might expect, vocative phrases allow relative clauses in various places. In vocative phrases which are simple names (after the vocative words), any relative clauses must come just after the names: 9.6) coi. frank. poi xunre se bende Hello, Frank who is-a-red team-member Hello, Frank from the Red Team! The restrictive relative clause in Example 9.6 suggests that there is some other Frank (perhaps on the Green Team) from whom this Frank, the one the speaker is greeting, must be distinguished. A vocative phrase containing a selbri can have relative clauses either before or after the selbri; both forms have the same meaning. Here are some examples: 9.7) co'o poi mi zvati ke'a ku'o xirma Goodbye, such-that( I am-at IT ) horse Goodbye, horse where I am! 9.8) co'o xirma poi mi zvati Goodbye, horse such-that( I am-at-it). Examples 9.7 and 9.8 mean the same thing. 10. Relative Clauses Within Relative Clauses For the most part, these are straightforward and uncomplicated: a sumti that is part of a relative clause bridi may itself be modified by a relative clause: 10.1) le prenu poi zvati le kumfa poi blanu cu masno The person who is-in the room which is-blue is-slow. However, an ambiguity can exist if "ke'a" is used in a relative clause within a relative clause: does it refer to the outermost sumti, or to the sumti within the outer relative clause? The latter. To refer to the former, use a subscript on "ke'a": 10.2) le prenu poi zvati le kumfa poi ke'axire zbasu ke'a cu masno The person who is-in the room which IT-sub-2 built IT is-slow. The person who is in the room which he built is slow. Here, the implication of "IT-sub-2" is that sumti attached to the second relative clause, counting from the innermost, is used. Therefore, "ke'axipa" (IT-sub-1) means the same as plain "ke'a". 11. Index of Relative Clause cmavo Relative clause introducers (selma'o NOI): noi incidental clauses poi restrictive clauses voi restrictive clauses (non-veridical) Relative phrase introducers (selma'o GOI): goi pro-sumti assignment pe restrictive association ne non-restrictive association po extrinsic (alienable) possession po'e intrinsic (inalienable) possession po'u identity no'u non-restrictive identity Relativizing pro-sumti (selma'o KOhA): ke'a pro-sumti for relativized sumti Relative clause joiner (selma'o ZIhE) zi'e joins relative clauses applying to a single sumti Relative clause associator (selma'o VUhO) vu'o causes relative clauses to apply to all of a complex sumti Elidable terminators (each its own selma'o) ku'o relative clause elidable terminator ge'u relative phrase elidable terminator 12. Relative Clause BNF What follows is the complete syntax of Lojban sumti and free modifiers, although many features appearing here are only described elsewhere, if they aren't relevant to relative clauses. umti<90> = sumti-1 [VUhO relative-clauses] sumti-1<91> = sumti-2 [(ek | joik) [stag] KE # sumti /KEhE#/] ... sumti-2<92> = sumti-3 [joik-ek sumti-3] ... sumti-3<93> = sumti-4 [(ek | joik) [stag] BO # sumti-3] sumti-4<94> = sumti-5 | gek sumti gik sumti-4 sumti-5<95> = [quantifier] sumti-6 [relative-clauses] | quantifier selbri /KU#/ [relative-clauses] sumti-6<97> = (LAhE # | NAhE BO #) [relative-clauses] sumti /LUhU#/ | KOhA # | lerfu-string /BOI#/ | LA CMENE ... # | (LA | LE) sumti-tail /KU#/ | LI mex /LOhO#/ | ZO any-word # | LU text /LIhU/ # | LOhU any-word ... LEhU # | ZOI any-word anything any-word # sumti-tail<111> = [sumti-6 [relative-clauses]] sumti-tail-1 | relative-clauses sumti-tail-1 sumti-tail-1<112> = [quantifier] selbri [relative-clauses] | quantifier sumti relative-clauses<121> = relative-clause [ZIhE relative-clause] ... relative-clause<122> = GOI term /GEhU#/ | NOI sentence /KUhO#/ free<32> = SEI # [term ... [CU #]] selbri /SEhU/ | SOI sumti [sumti] /SEhU/ | vocative selbri [relative-clauses] /DOhU/ | vocative relative-clauses sumti-tail-1 /DOhU/ | vocative CMENE ... # [relative-clauses] /DOhU/ | vocative [sumti] /DOhU/ | (number | lerfu-string) MAI | TO text /TOI/ | XI number /BOI/ | XI lerfu-string /BOI/ | XI VEI mex /VEhO/ -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban.