* Saturday, 2011-11-26 at 09:32 -0800 - John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
> I can't (with a straight face) claim to have followed this discussion, but I
> offer this tidbit about relative clauses. A restrictive relative clause
> attaches to a description *and are part of that description*. That is, for
> Lojban, {lo broda (ku?) poi brode} is just {lo broda Ce brode} ( I can never
> keep all the various versions of the logical connectives straight, nor be sure
> what is meant to be connected here, predicates or bridi tails or something else
> altogether). Consequently, it is unaffected by various operators within whose
> scope it lies, just like the predicate inside the official description.
But sometimes the predicate inside the description is affected by, or
rather is constrained by, scope - e.g. {ro da lo broda be da cu brode}.
> This latter is true also of non-restrictive relative clauses, but they
> are simply separate sentences: {lo proda noi brode cu brodi} is {lo
> broda cu brodi .ije lo broda cu brode}.
But what about {ro da noi brode cu brodi}? And {na ku ro da noi brode cu
brodi}?
> I am not sure about {voi}, but whichever, it is independent of the
> operators within whose scope it lies.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
> To: lojban@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Sat, November 26, 2011 9:41:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [lojban] semantic parser - tersmu-0.1rc1
>
> * Saturday, 2011-11-26 at 11:02 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>
> > On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > {noi broda} is veridicial - it affects the truth conditions of the
> > > claim, so it can't be scope-invariant.
> > >
> > > {voi broda} is non-veridicial - it doesn't affect the truth conditions,
> > > so is scope-invariant. It just gives hints to help the listener
> > > understand the intended referents of the sumti it's attached to, by
> > > noting that they satisfy broda (or appear to satisfy broda, this being
> > > all that's relevant).
> >
> > The veridicality of "noi" means that the subordinate clause is a
> > veridical claim about its subject, it has nothing to do with how it
> > affects (or rather doesn't affect) the truth of the main clause. The
> > non-restrictiveness of "noi" is what makes it independent of the main
> > clause.
>
> Hmm. I wonder if I now finally understand part of xorlo: would you say
> that {lo broda} is equivalent, under this side-clause interpretation of
> {noi} you've just set out, to {le broda noi broda}?
>
> I never understood how it could be veridical, and spelt {lo} rather than
> {le}, and yet be invariant under negation scope. This would explain it.
>
> > I can't comment on "voi" since we don't really know whether it's
> > supposed to be restrictive or non-restrictive. It could very well be
> > both non-veridical and restrictive: "the woman that I described as a
> > man" vs "the woman, who I described as a man". I'm not sure which one
> > of those "lo ninmu voi nanmu" is supposed to be.
>
> I don't know about {lo}, but presumably {le broda ku voi brode} is
> equivalent to {le broda je brode}.
>
> To me that suggests that {ko'a voi broda} be not exactly restrictive,
> but rather something like "disambiguatingly incidental". It describes
> ko'a as satisfying broda, with the intention that this makes clearer the
> intended referents of {ko'a}. So {ro da voi nanmu cu broda} is highly
> unhelpful, as it describes everything as being a man, but isn't actually
> false unless something doesn't broda.
>
> This looks like a useful role for it, whether or not it was the
> originally intended one, no?
>
> Martin
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
>
Attachment:
pgpJGGJkV62Gy.pgp
Description: PGP signature