From nicholas@uci.edu Fri Aug 17 14:20:26 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: nicholas@uci.edu X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 17 Aug 2001 21:20:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 35486 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2001 21:20:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 17 Aug 2001 21:20:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO e4e.oac.uci.edu) (128.200.222.10) by mta2 with SMTP; 17 Aug 2001 21:20:21 -0000 Received: from localhost (nicholas@localhost) by e4e.oac.uci.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA00363; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 14:20:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: e4e.oac.uci.edu: nicholas owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 14:20:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: To: Cc: Nick NICHOLAS Subject: ce'u Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Nick NICHOLAS X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 9727 There has been a fairly icky exchange on ce'u in http://nuzban.wiw.org/wiki/index.php?ce%27u . I am disinclined to say anything about this anymore, but this does have to be cleared up for the lessons, and the final lesson discusses ce'u. So here goes. I will try and (a) break this up into digestible issues; (b) not be partisan. 1. Implicit in much of the misunderstandings on that discussion is the following issue: is it meaningful to speak of an abstraction containing ce'u, outside a bridi? That is, can ce'u be filled with a value that does not come from the jufra containing it? If it can, then one can say things like {leka *mi* gleki cu xamgu do} (where {mi} fills the {ce'u} slot --- I'm avoiding {ce'u} for now.) If it cannot, then a sentence like this is meaningless: you should be saying {lenu mi gleki cu xamgu do}, and reserving {ka} with filled {ce'u} slots for bridi where the filler is in the same jufra; e.g. {do fange mi leka ce'u pinxe loi tcati}. As an extension of this, filling {ce'u} slots might even 'be considered harmful'; something wih an explicit value instead of {ce'u} is no longer a property at all. 2. If you allow {ce'u} slots to be filled by explicit sumti, how should you fill them? Nicholas in the Lessons proposes {le ka ce'u xendo fa mi}. Nicholas in the Lessons and Wiki proposes and adopts {le ka ce'u no'u mi xendo} Raizen (if I interpret him correctly) does not believe {ce'u} slots should be filled by explicit sumti, but will allow as a "lesser of evils" the expression {le ka mi zo'u ce'u xendo} Recent discussion on the list (Rosta, Llambias) has suggested an x2 of {ka}: {le ka ce'u xendo kei be mi}. This would bring {ka} in line with {li'i}. (As a side note, it has also been proposed on the Wiki that {li'i} abstractions should contain a {ce'u}. This would make {ka} and {li'i} behave identically.) (Editorial note: I would be delighted to put this into the lessons instead, if it is considered not to violate the cmavo baseline. Otherwise, I don't feel I can.) 3. If a {ka}-phrase is lacking {ce'u}, where should it be read in by default? If you believe {ka}-phrases can have filled {ce'u} values, then whether or not a sumti place is empty does not necessarily affect where that value can be read in. If you believe {ka}-phrases should not have filled {ce'u} values, then the default place to read {ce'u} must be an empty place. Nicholas holds the former, and believes the default should be x1. Rosta has expressed himself similarly. Raizen (I think) holds the latter, and believes the default should be the first available empty space. This makes {ce'u} behave identically to {ke'a}. Cowan has said that the location of {ce'u} should be glorked from context. (In response to which, Nicholas wants the status of {ce'u} interpretation to be the same as that of {ke'a}: default and defeasible. As a reminder, the location of {ke'a} is also primarily meant to be glorked from context.) xod may or may not be changing his mind about this; his initial position, at least, is that usage is that {ce'u} and {ke'a} are elided only in x1, and are not inserted in already filled places. In the Reference Grammar, Examples 11.4.7 and 11.4.8 clearly treat elided {ce'u} like {ke'a} (Raizen): {le ka mi prami} = {le ka mi prami ce'u} "the property of (I love X). Example 11.4.4. just as clearly treats elided {ce'u} as occupying a filled x1 slot (Nicholas): {le ka do xunre} "The property-of your being-red" = "Your redness". The reason for the difference is obvious, on inspection. 11.4.7 has a 'bounded' {ka}-clause: {la djan. cu zmadu la djordj. le ka mi prami ce'u} --- {ce'u} is bounded to {djan} and {djordj} in the nesting abstraction. In linguistic terminology, it is a c-commanded anaphor. 11.4.4 has a 'free' {ka}-clause: {le ka do xunre [kei] cu cnino mi}, where the {ka}-clause is x1. Note the counterexample of 11.4.3, in which the {ce'u} is now empty, and the {ka}-clause is (arguably) not 'free': {do cnino mi le ka xunre [kei]}. To me, this indicates that the refgramm does not favour either mechanism of resolving the location of {ce'u}. Rather, its usage implies yet another way of resolving elided {ce'u} --- apparently dependent on Natural Language notions of anaphor bondedness. If {ce'u} would be c-commanded in the {ka}-clause (ce'u = la djordj, la djan), put it in the first empty place. If {ce'u} would be free in the {ka}-clause (the {ka}-clause is x1, there's no plausible antecedent noun), treat it as the x1 slot, empty or not. I am not saying such a rule would be good for Lojban; in fact, I'd say the opposite. But I think this is what John was unconsciously doing. *** Now for the editorial. Actually, I'll be mercifully brief: I now think there is something wrong about {le ka mi xendo cu xamgu do}. I'm almost prepared to concede that {ka} should not be a free agent, like {nu} and {du'u}, but restricted to bridi contexts which can plausibly supply the means of filling in the value of {ce'u}. However, I also think the mechanism of filling in the value of {ce'u} should be local to the {ka}-clause, for clarity if nothing else. And I think that making {ka} and {li'i} behave uniformly, so that both take {ce'u} and both take x2, would be a very good thing. The primary baseline concern, as I understand it, is not to invalidate existing text. In my opinion, an added x2 for {ka} won't invalidate text; and an x1 default for {ce'u}, filled or not, is also the solution that invalidates the least existing text. For different reasons, though (sacredness of cmavo list, logical messiness of x1 default), I am pessimistic about either being adopted. -- == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == Nick Nicholas, Breathing {le'o ko na rivbi fi'inai palci je tolvri danlu} nicholas@uci.edu -- Miguel Cervantes tr. Jorge LLambias