Re: [lojban] what {me lo broda ku} means and why not allow {selbri NOI}

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:44 AM, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> Are you saying that {noi} and {poi} would have different uses as
> selbri/bridi relative clauses? I can see {poi} being a substitute for
> {gi'e}, and {noi} a bridi relative clause, but maybe there are uses for a
> {noi}-like gi'e or a restrictive bridi relative clause.

"noi" and "poi" already have different logics with sumti, so yes, they
would also work differently with selbri.

The home ground of "poi" is for determining the domain of
quantification of a quantifier: "Q da poi ke'a broda" marks the set
that satisfies broda as the domain of quantification for Q. But a
domain of quantification can also be indicated directly with a sumti:
"Q ko'a", so that the referents of ko'a constitute the domain in that
case. And a third way of doing it is to mix both methods: "Q ko'a poi
broda", in which case the domain of quantification is the intersection
between the set of referents of "ko'a" and the set that satisfies
"broda". The sumti method of specifying the domain of quantification
can be reduced to the poi-method: "Q da poi me ko'a", and similarly
the mixed method to: "Q da poi me ko'a gi'e broda". So, yes, "poi",
when combined with something other than a pure variable, is
essentially "gi'e".

But "noi" is quite different. "Q da noi broda" makes very little
sense. A noi-clause can always be removed from the sentence in which
it appears and the meaning of what remains is not affected. The only
connection the noi-clause has with the sumti it attaches to is that it
picks the referents of that sumti to make an additional comment about
them. That's why it makes little sense when attached to a syntactic
sumti that has no referents. But we may want to make additional
comments about the selbri or about the whole bridi too.

> The problem I see with {broda NOI brode} is that it messes with constructs
> like {lo broda NOI brode}. If NOI can attach to selbri, then there is no
> longer a way to put NOI inside the LE description (e.g. "lo broda noi brode
> [ku'o] [ku]}, which makes a difference when outer quantifiers are present.

True, but noi doesn't make much sense in combination with quantifiers
anyway. We would also need to allow it after "vau", so we can say
things like:

do pu citka lo plise vau noi do pu nupre lo nu do na ba co'e
You ate the apples, which you had promised you wouldn't do.

>> do sanga noi mi na co'e
>> You sing, which I don't.
>>
>> do sanga noi ro da djica lo nu da co'e
>> You sing, which everybody wants to do.
>
> Wouldn't {no'a} work?
>
> do sanga noi mi na no'a
> You sing, which I do not.

Yes, but for the second one "no'a" would get "djica" instead of "sanga".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.