Re: [lojban] [oz] {ny poi cy ke'a falcru}

On 7 February 2014 13:53, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't think I understand your question. Why wouldn't ny refer to "lo narge"? That is the antecedent (from "lo narge cu tai cmalu"). Or, are you perhaps meaning to refer to the SECOND use of "ny", and asserting it should now be reassigned to meaning "ny poi cy ke'a falcru"?

I didn't even think about the second one, my issue is more fundamental.

I agree that {ny} refers to lo narge, but it ought to be the exact same lo narge, and not a proper part of it. I guess you think so. The issue then is whether a relative clause can change that.

Consider {lo spesi'u poi crino}. My interpretation is that it refers to people that form a couple (or couples), and additionaly we have the information that these people are green, which presumably is important to understand which couple we're talking about. It has the same possible referents as {lo crino poi spesi'u} and {zo'e poi spesi'u gi'e crino}. The relative clause can only limit the possible referents of the description, not expand it.

To talk about a green part of some spesi'u, we could say {lo me lo spesi'u me'u poi crino}, or more simply {lo crino pagbu be lo spesi'u}, or, in particular, {lo speni poi crino}.

But, using the convention from the text, we would read it another way. {lo spesi'u} would still, of course, refer to a couple, but then the relative clause would act on the reference of {lo spesi'u} to extract a part of it that is green, even if it does not form a couple any more. The relative clause can, then, create new possibilities of reference. It is still restrictive in the sense that it takes a reference and then restricts it to a part of it.

Only now could I come up with this last interpretation. It surely wasn't intuitive to me. I will reflect on its consequences. But for now, what do you think?

mu'o nai
mi'e .asiz.

--gejyspa

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Felipe Gonçalves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com> wrote:

The full passage is:
{lo nàrge cu tai cmàlu .i ja'e bo ny poi cy ke'a fàlcru cu ja'a ru'e se zmàmei ny poi cy ke'a pùnji lo lànka}

Here, {ny poi cy ke'a falcru}, clearly means something equivalent to either {lo narge poi cy ke'a falcru} or to what I would write as {lo me ny poi cy ke'a falcru}. To me, an anaphoric _expression_ always has exactly the same referent as the antecedent. What do you think?

doi la selpa'i, what is your idea behind this usage? Do you think the anaphora just occurs at the superficial textual level, so that {ny} would be equivalent to {lo narge}? Or do you think that {ko'a poi broda} is meaningful in general, so that {ko'a} can in effect refer to a strict part of ko'a, i.e, as in {lo me ko'a}?

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.