* Sunday, 2014-09-28 at 12:35 +0100 - And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:
> On 28 Sep 2014 12:04, and.rosta@gmail.com wrote:
> > On 28 Sep 2014 02:34, "Martin Bays" <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > > the compositionality of restrictive clauses (which admittedly is
> > > already broken in some other cases, e.g. {da poi broda}).
> >
> > I agree {da poi} looks broken. What are the remedies? (1) To allow
> > noncompositional idioms? (2) To define /poi/ as an allomorph of /noi/ in
> > this syntactic environment? (3) To accept that, given the internal logic of
> > the language, {da poi} as habitually used is simply wrong? (4) To seek and
> > find a consistent definition for {poi} and {noi} such that {da poi} usage
> > becomes correct?
Some other possibilities:
(5) change the grammar to match the semantics, taking variable out of
sumti6, and having restrictive relatives allowed only where there's
a matching place for a quantifier;
(6) note that doing (5) wouldn't actually render anything ungrammatical,
so treat the existing grammar as a kind of shorthand for that in (5),
and so consider current handling to be "effectively compositional".
Other than indicators and frees, the {ro bu'a} hack, and {ma poi broda}
which is arguably magic in the same way {da poi broda} is, I can't think
of any place the semantics doesn't match the grammar. Not too bad.
> I realize I was too hasty. Modifying a constant, X poi/noi broda both mean
> "me X" & "broda", differing in the scopal position of "broda", local for
> poi and outermost (in the entire logical form) for noi.
I think {ko'a noi broda} really involves the claim {ko'a broda}, not
{lo me ko'a cu broda}.
> Modifying a variable, that cannot be the difference. I had been
> assuming that noi modifying a variable would have outermost scopal
> position within the domain in which the variable is bound.
Hmm, that makes some sense. I have been taking, ever since xorxes told
me off for doing otherwise in the first release, incidentals to be
truly incidental, having no effect on the truth value of the main
proposition. So a {noi} on a variable yields a side claim entirely
outside the scope of the corresponding quantifier, so involving an
unbound variable, which I'm currently (fairly arbitrarily) handling by
universally quantifying it out over whatever domain it was originally
quantified over, so e.g. {du su'o da poi broda zi'e noi brode} -> {ro da
poi broda zo'u da brode .i su'o da poi broda zo'u du da}.
> But I haven't studied the matter long enough to be sure that there is
> no other equally coherent definition for poi & noi.
>
> At any rate, none of this is in CLL, so at best is part of the lore of what
> should go into a revised CLL.
Yes.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature