Recall the following production:
sumti5 <- quantifier? sumti6 [relative-clauses]
I want to understand the semantics of this in the case that there is no
quantifier, and there is a restrictive clause among the relative clauses.
{ko'a poi broda}, in other words.
If there is a quantifier, the semantics are clear - relative clauses restrict
the domain of the quantifier.
In CLL lojban, this is the only case - there is always an (implicit)
quantifier.
Under xorlo, when there are no restrictives we have fairly clear semantics -
the sumti has a plural referent, any incidentals give side-clauses in separate
scope, and any {goi} clauses assign sumbasti. A singular quantifier quantifies
over those individuals among the referents which satisfy the conjunction of
the restrictive clause predicates.
Note that the "lo broda == zo'e noi broda" dogma reduces the
sumti6 <- LE sumti-tail KU?
production to the above one.
Nothing in the documentation on xorlo that I've found gives semantics in the
unquantified restricted case, although it has seen much usage.
I can see six broad approaches to interpreting such expressions, i.e. those of
the form {ko'a poi broda}.
(i) Consider it an error, or just ignore any restrictives.
(ii) Declare that in this case (and this case alone), there is an implicit
quantifier after all.
(iii) Have it pick out some referents such that they satisfy the restrictives:
ko'a poi broda -> zo'e noi me ko'a gi'e broda
(iv) Have it pick out those referents which each satisfy broda:
ko'a poi broda ->
zo'e noi ro da zo'u go da me ke'a go ge da me ko'a gi broda
(v) Something along the lines of (iv), but more in line with plural logic /
mereology, perhaps by requiring the obvious maximality condition, i.e.
ko'a poi broda ->
zo'e noi ge ge me ko'a gi broda gi ro da poi ge ge ke'a xi re me ke'a gi
ke'a me ko'a gi ke'a broda cu du ke'a
, perhaps making it an error if there is no unique such maximum, or
perhaps taking all the maxima together (i.e. taking the join).
(vi) Something along the lines of (v), but with no formal rule - just an idea
that the intended referents of {ko'a poi broda} are picked out among the
referents of {ko'a} by virtue of their brodaing.
The usage I've seen could fit any of (iii)-(vi), I think. So, taking various
degrees of liberty, could CLL's use of restrictives - although of course they
had implicit quantifiers, so are not really relevant.
Martin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature