On 28 Sep 2014 17:03, "Martin Bays" <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> * Sunday, 2014-09-28 at 12:35 +0100 - And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:
>
> > On 28 Sep 2014 12:04,and.rosta@gmail.comwrote:
> > > 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".
If {X poi broda cu brode} = {lo me X gi'e broda cu brode} and {X noi broda cu brode} = {X broda gi'e ...... brode}, then neither strike me as appropriate for restricted quantification. To get at the underlying logic of {so'e broda cu brode}, it seems to me you need something like {lo du'u ke'a broda kei so'e zei so'e lo du'u ke'a brode}, where {so'e zei so'e} is an ad hoc selbri counterpart of so'e, and which xorxes would surely want to simplify to {lo broda cu so'e zei so'e lo brode}. (This is similar to but less adequate than the solution I got introduced into Xorban.)
So if there is a compositional interpretation for {da poi}, can you gently and not too technically spell it out for me?
> > 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}.
Yes, on reflection I agree, tho does it make a difference?
>
> > 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}.
It seems to me that my suggestion better yields a single rule that applies consistently to all cases. E.g. {ro broda noi brodo na brode} = {ro broda ku brodo gi'e na brode}.
--And.
--