Re: [lojban] semantic parser - tersmu-0.1rc1

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 10:19 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jorge Llambías, On 26/11/2011 14:02:
>>
>> The non-restrictiveness of "noi" is what makes it independent of the
>> main clause.
>
> I think that's not so. In "every little baby", "little" is nonrestrictive
> but not independent of the clause.

I said it backwards. What I should have said is "the
non-restrictiveness of "noi" is what makes the main clause independent
of it". I don't think noi-clauses are fully independent of the main
clause, since they need it to at least get the referent of "ke'a". But
the converse I think is true, the main clause can't take anything from
the noi-clause.

> What makes "noi" and English
> "non-restrictive relative clauses" -- or "supplementary relative clauses" in
> the terminology of Huddleston and Pullum, or "incidental relative clauses"
> in the termonology of Lojban -- independent of the containing clause is the
> supplementarity/incidentality, which I think should be modelled logically as
> an independent illocutionary operator. For example "Is Cardiff, which is the
> capital of Wales, polluted?" is, logically, "I-HEREBY-ASK whether Cardiff is
> polluted & I-HEREBY-ASSERT-INCIDENTALLY that Cardiff is the capital of
> Wales".

Sounds right. And you could have it the other way around, with the
main clause asserted and the incidental questioned:"Cardiff --which is
the capital of Wales, isn't it?-- is polluted."

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
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.