[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban-beginners] Re: Fwd: Re: alice questions
On 8/17/05, Chris Capel <pdf23ds@gmail.com> wrote:
> So here's one last question on this. Is
> the tanru sense of {xunblabi kanla} and {xunblabi se kanla} the same,
> vagueness and all, out of context of this bridi?
In theory, at least, yes. All we can say is that the relation {xunblabi}
is modifying the relation {kanla}/{se kanla} (which is the same relation,
it only differs in the order of the arguments). There are no specified
rules as to how the modification goes.
>Or is it the case
> that the first would be preferred because the intended interpretation
> is more obvious, but the second allows that interpretation as well,
> and so is permissible, but less obvious? In other words, does {se
> kanla} suggest (even if it doesn't compel) that {xunblabi} is talking
> about the x2 of {kanla} instead of x1?
It's hard to say. Why would it be more obvious that in {xunblabi broda}
{xunblabi} apply to the x1 of {broda} and not to the x2? Because {xunblabi}
is a color word? Because it is an "adjective"? Perhaps so, or perhaps
we are just being influenced by our natlangs. In any case there are
no rules in Lojban that tell us which one should be preferred, at least not
so far.
> Speaking as a newbie, I would use {poi} when the additional
> information would help to disambiguate the intended reference of the
> restricted sumti. This might be my misunderstanding of {poi}, though.
> In this case, since there's only one obvious intended reference here,
> {lo ractu poi bajra zo'a la alis}, there's nothing to be
> disambiguated. Taking out the poi clause takes out the information
> that the referent of {lo ractu} has pink eyes. It doesn't change what
> the reader sees as the referent. There is only one rabbit in the
> story.
{poi xunblabi se kanla} has the same function as {blabi}: it restricts
the sense of {ractu}. It's not any ractu but a white one, and one with
pink eyes. I agree one could also say {lo ractu ku noi blabi gi'e
xunblabi se kanla}, but I don't see anything strange in using a
more precise description either.
We can say: "A rabbit -- white and with pink eyes -- ran by her", or
we can say "A white-rabbit-with-pink-eyes ran by her".
> Or do you mean that {bajra zo'a la alis} isn't taken into
> consideration as far as the referent of the sumti assumed in the
> subordinate clause goes, but only the sumti itself? That, I can't
> imagine.
Not sure what you mean. Presenting the information about the eyes
as restrictive or incidental info are just two (nor very different in this
case) ways of describing the situation. I think {poi} is closer to how
the original does it, but both ways would work here.
> > (There is also a difference between {lo broda noi brode [ku]}
> > and {lo broda ku noi brode}. To use {noi} here would require
> > a {ku} otherwise we would be saying that white rabbits
> > have pink eyes irrespective of this white rabbit in particular.
>
> How's that? {lo ractu} in itself doesn't mean {ro ractu}. And a {noi}
> can't assign a quality to a referent that the sumti doesn't already
> include itself, can it? That would just be strange. This seems to
> relate to your comment just previous.
The difference between {lo (ractu noi blabi) ku} and
{(lo ractu ku) noi blabi} would be that in the first case the incidental
clause is about {ractu}, before it is used to refer to something, while
in the second case it is about the referent of {lo ractu}.
> > I don't know that I want to insist on this (mis?)feature of {noi},
> > but it probably influenced me at the time. See
> > <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK+Section%3A+Subordinators>
> > for more than you probably want to know.)
>
> That's a lot to wade through, sure nuff.
>
> Sorry if this is getting a bit OT. If you think I should read the CLL
> more thoroughly and then come back, go ahead and say so. I'm willing
> to admit that my confusion might go away with a more thorough
> understanding of the grammar. :-)
I don't mind discussing these things, so don't stop on my account.
After all, nobody is forcing me to respond. :)
mu'o mi'e xorxes