Re: [lojban] xoi and new soi as bridi relative clause

[selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>]

la .guskant. cu cusku di'e
> Which do you prefer:
>
> 1. keep the current situiation, and regard {soi} as an exception of
> scope of terms;
> 2. keep the current situiation, and let {soi} loose the power of
> left-scope ({soi} becomes the same as {xoi});
> 3. create a new grammatical property for {soi}, and keep {xoi} as it is;
> 4. allow {soi}-clause become a "free", that has the same property as
> {sei}-clause (easier than 3.);
> 5. other.

New-{soi} originally started out as a free modifier (before xoi became 
popular), but then I thought that being a term is more useful because it 
allows us to use it in termsets:

  (A) mi ge lo xamsi soi cafne gi lo cmana soi to'e cafne cu klama
      "I often go to the ocean, but rarely to the mountain."

Such a construction used to be impossible before. However, now that 
{xoi} exists, it could easily replace {soi} in that sentence, and {soi} 
*could* go back to being a free modifier (option 4).

I think this would depend on how much support {xoi} has (it has 
experimental cmavo form which might bother some people?). If {xoi} is 
going to become part of standard Lojban then I think option 4 works 
(sentence (A) needs to remain expressable somehow).

I'd like to hear from other users of both {soi} and {xoi}.

mi'e la selpa'i mu'o

--
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/d/optout.