[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[no subject]
Proposed Changes 1-21 to 2nd Baseline Lojban Grammar (Part 2 - 20-21)
CHANGE 20
CURRENT LANGUAGE:
Relative clauses on descriptions are grouped by the parser so as to
attach to sumti before outside quantifiers are put on. The actual
semantics of what is being attached has been pragmatically determined,
and analysis has now shown that this can theoretically be
vague/ambiguous or even limiting to expression in the language, though
workarounds probably exist for all problems raised.
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Allow the distinction between a relative clause attaching to the "inside
set", excluding external quantifiers, of a description. A relative
clause outside the KU will refer to the entire sumti. A relative clause
inside the KU will generally be preposed so as to parallel the
historical pseudo-possessive which is recognized as a transformation of an
inside-set relative clause.
Variations of this proposal will retain or prohibit postposed relative
clauses inside the KU in some or all structures.
Comparable expansion of the relative clause possibilites inside vocatives
is incorporated in this proposal.
RATIONALE:
The current grammar appears to group relative clauses with the "inside
set" of a description sumti, that portion of a sumti including from the
LE to the KU which includes the inside quantifier and not the outside
quantifier. In the case of non-restrictive "lo" descriptions, and
possibly some others, this is not what is intended.
Example: "pa lo sipna noi melbi" groups as "pa <lo sipna noi melbi>"
apparently claiming that all sleepers are beautiful.
The problem manifests itself in various forms more completely documented
in a long paper by Colin Fine, but the bottom line is that the existing
grammar is vague as to what a relative clause attaches to, and there are
definable cases where this vagueness can lead to unacceptable ambiguity.
The proposed solution has the secondary virtues of 1) making
pseudo-possessives visibly match the parallel inside-set relative
clauses, but without overt relative clause marking; 2) making it obvious
how to to express a pseudo-possessive with a quantifier ("le ci mi
broda" is a complete sentence and not a sumti, since "le ci mi" is a
complete sumti. With preposed inside-set relative clauses, "le pecimi
broda" is unambiguously a sumti.); and 3) the problematical [quantifier]
[quantifier] [description] is eliminated from the language (analysis can
give a meaning for this expression of [quantifier] lo [quantifier] lo
[description], and it has even been used once or twice, but experience
has shown that the analysis is counterintuitive to many people, who see
also [quantifier1] lo [description] [quantifier2]-mei as plausible).
Options relating to allowing postposed relative clauses inside the KU
(referring to inside-sets, and thus parallelling the preposed
equivalent) lead to a complicated tradeoff, which is left for the
community to resolve. Option 3) is believed closest to the current
grammar and semantics, and is the default selection.
1) If postposed inside relatives are allowed in all descriptions, then
the preposed/postposed distinction becomes a forethought/afterthought
distinction, which can be valuable. It also makes existing texts retain
their currently official inside-relative interpretation (unless the KU
is explicitly present, a rarity), which is arguably desirable as the
default (though it must be recognized that there are text examples where
the speaker obviously wanted to apply the relative clause to the
externally quantified sumti.) The negative tradeoff of this is that KU
becomes ALWAYS required when you want an external relative clause.
2) If postposed inside relatives are never allowed, then all existing
usages will become parsed as external relatives whether or not a KU is
present. This is probably equally valid as 1) as a default, and makes a
simpler, easier-to-teach grammar, since one learns the rule: prepose
inside, postpose outside. The negative tradeoffs are that this
eliminates the forethought/afterthought distinction, forcing the speaker
to form all inside restrictions before starting the description, and
that somewhat more of older texts will be misinterpreted under the new
parse.
3) A third option is to allow postposed inside relatives ONLY when there
is an inside quantifier. A negative is that it seems counterintuitive
that this would handle almost all problems with existing texts, but in
fact it appears to do so. The other negative is that "lo broda noi/poi
brode" (external relative) would have a different parse than "su'o lo ro
broda noi/poi broda" (internal relative), which is merely the same sumti
with implicit quanifiers made explicit. This could make it more
difficult to teach, though it might make natural expression easier if
relative clauses end up grouping correctly most often without the KU.
A note applicable to all options is that preposed relative clauses (but
not relative phrases) will almost always require a terminator, though
monosyllabic "vau" is usually as applicable as "ku'o". This weakens the
use of vau as a (rarely needed) terminator of sumti strings/sentences
(which might cause reviewers of this proposal to ask for consideration
of reversing ku'o and vau - a more major change in that it affects much
documentation and text, but puts the mono-syllables where they are
needed). Since preposed relative clauses require a terminator, it would
be useful to allow the afterthough construction per 1) or 3) which does
not require a terminator (but may require explicit KU too often,
especially in option 1).
The following analyzes all definite and indefinite cases per option 3)
giving English translations of the examples to show that the Lojban
interpretation is natural at least for English speakers (recognizing
that it may not be so for others).
Descriptor External internal noi/poi
quantifier quantifier
present present
le no no poi
le sipna poi melbi
[ro (le su'o sipna ku)] poi melbi
The sleepers who are beautiful...
le no no noi
le sipna noi melbi
[ro (le su'o sipna ku)] noi melbi
The sleepers, who are beautiful...
le no yes poi
le ci sipna poi melbi
ro (le ci sipna poi melbi ku)
The 3 sleepers who are beautiful...
le no yes noi
le ci sipna noi melbi
ro (le ci sipna noi melbi ku)
The 3 sleepers, who are beautiful...
le yes no poi
ci le sipna poi melbi
[ci (le su'oci sipna ku)] poi melbi
3 of the sleepers who are beautiful...
(the English is ambiguous as to whether all of the sleepers
are beautiful or just the 3. The Lojban is unambiguously talking
only about the 3, but since there is no internal quantifier
there is no secondary focus on the inside set)
le yes no noi
ci le sipna noi melbi
[ci (le su'oci sipna ku)] noi melbi
3 of the sleepers, who are beautiful...
(The English is again ambiguous but more plausibly suggests
merely the 3).
le yes yes poi
re le ci sipna poi melbi
re (le ci sipna poi melbi ku)
re le ci sipna ku poi melbi
[re (le ci sipna ku)] poi melbi
Two of the 3 sleepers who are beautiful...
(The English is totally ambiguous as to what is being restricted,
and the Lojban in this case makes the distinction based on
presence of the ku, forcing the speaker to think about the
distinction when important.)
le yes yes noi
re le ci sipna noi melbi
re (le ci sipna noi melbi ku)
re le ci sipna ku noi melbi
[re (le ci sipna ku)] noi melbi
Two of the 3 sleepers, who are beautiful...
(The English is totally ambiguous as to which sleepers are beautiful,
and the Lojban in this case makes the distinction based on
presence of the ku, forcing the speaker to think about the
distinction when important.)
lo no no poi
lo sipna poi melbi
[su'o (lo ro sipna ku)] poi melbi
Sleepers who are beautiful...
lo no no noi
lo sipna noi melbi
[su'o (lo ro sipna ku)] noi melbi
Sleepers, who are beautiful...
lo no yes poi
lo ci sipna poi melbi
su'o (lo ci sipna poi melbi ku)
At least one of the 3 in the universe that sleep who are beautiful...
(Unusual in English, but unambiguous because of "are" agreement;
the following gives a more likely example:)
lomi ci cukta poi melbi
su'o (lomi ci cukta poi melbi ku)
At least one of my 3 books that are beautiful...
(The essential point is that quantifiying the inside set emphasizes
it so that the restriction applying to it seems natural - natural
enough that English requires forcing an indefinite description if
there is an inside quantifier.)
lo no yes noi
lo ci sipna noi melbi
su'o (lo ci sipna noi melbi ku)
At least one of the 3 in the universe that sleep, who are beautiful...
(Extremely rare in English since it makes a universal claim about
about number and incidental property, but unambiguous because
of "are" agreement.)
lo yes no poi
ci lo sipna poi melbi
[ci (lo rosu'oci sipna ku)] poi melbi
3 sleepers who are beautiful...
(With no inside quantifier, the English becomes an indefinite,
and there is no suggestion that there is an inside-set, much less
that the relative clause relates to it. Likewise in the Lojban
which reduces to the indefinite
ci sipna poi melbi
(which under this change will have the ku after the melbi to separate
from other sumti)
The Lojban is unambiguously talking only about the 3, since there
is no internal quantifier to put secondary focus on the inside set)
There is a stilted English form that can force the theoretical
ambiguity to the fore:
?Three of sleepers who are beautiful...
which does ambiguously suggest the inside-set is the restricted one,
but we would normally expect this to be expressed:
Three of those sleepers who are beautiful...
which clearly has an internal restriction and could not be easily
modelled under 3) in Lojban, requiring preposed relatives or
explicit internal quantification to force the relative clause inside
ci lo ro sipna poi melbi
ci (lo ro sipna poi melbi)
which I would contend is a better reflection of the English "those"
anyway.
lo yes no noi
ci lo sipna noi melbi
[ci (lo rosu'oci sipna ku)] noi melbi
3 sleepers, who are beautiful...
(The English again becomes an indefinite and the incidental clause
goes outside. This time, even the English "those" form remains
ambiguous and odd-sounding
?3 of sleepers, who are beautiful...
?3 of those sleepers, who are beautiful...
unless you go to
3 who sleep, who are beautiful...
which is better reflected in Lojban as
ci da poi sipna zi'e noi melbi
which accurately puts the relative clause outside
or
3 of those who sleep, who are beautiful
which only forces the English back into ambiguity as to which are
beautiful
lo yes yes poi
re lo ci sipna poi melbi
re (lo ci sipna poi melbi ku)
re lo ci sipna ku poi melbi
[re (lo ci sipna ku)] poi melbi
Two of 3 sleepers who are beautiful...
(The English is totally ambiguous as to what is being restricted,
and the Lojban in this case makes the distinction based on
presence of the ku, forcing the speaker to think about the
distinction when important.)
lo yes yes noi
re lo ci sipna noi melbi
re (lo ci sipna noi melbi ku)
re lo ci sipna ku noi melbi
[re (lo ci sipna ku)] noi melbi
Two of 3 sleepers, who are beautiful...
(The unlikely English is totally ambiguous as to which sleepers are
beautiful, and the Lojban in this case makes the distinction based on
presence of the ku, forcing the speaker to think about the
distinction when important.)
IMPORTANT NOTE: Change 20 is sufficiently major, affecting nearly all
of the sumti grammar rules, that there may be unforeseen side effects.
This seems unlikely, as analysis so far has shown that the only
reduction in expression is the confusing [quantifier] [quantifier]
[description] which has a much clearer equivalent.
However, the introduction of such a major change at this late stage of
the project makes it highly controversial, as any problems may show up
too late to be easily fixed (i.e. after books are published).
CHANGE 21
PROPOSED CHANGE
Allow nesting of relative clauses, distinct from ZIhEK grouping which
retains relative clauses at the same level (commutative and associative,
with all restrictions taking place before non-restrictive uses).
RATIONALE
This change is mostly made moot by the addition of both inside and outside
relative clauses, which probably renders the NEED for nesting to be
negligible.
It is argued that natural language speakers will process relative
clauses as they come to them, making zi'e grouping unnatural if in
keeping with the logical aspects of the language. (Actual Lojban usage
suggests that people will prefer to put goi assignments, which are
non-restrictive, closer to the sumti than restrictive ones, even when
the wish the assignment to include the restriction.)
The advantages are that nesting allows variable assignment to
intermediate restrictions:
lo sipna goi ko'a poi melbi goi ko'e poi mi nelci [ke'a] goi ko'i
(ke'a in this case would seem to be the same as ko'e, requiring ke'axire
to get the equivalent of ko'a if it was useful for some reason.
Another argument is that "voi" restrictive clauses, which are intensional
would be implicitly nested, but as yet there has been no example of a
multiple voi relative clause to support this since "voi" is new in the
language and seldom-used at all.
Thus the bottom line is that some would like this option, and it is
an expansion of the language that dovetails well with Change 20.