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

[guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>]

Le lundi 20 juillet 2015 14:34:50 UTC, selpa'i a écrit :
> 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

je'e 

In order to keep (A) in which {soi} is replaced by {xoi} be valid, new selma'o XOI should be substituted for the new SOI so that {xoi}-clause be a term.

new SOI will become almost the same as SEI. The difference is only the bridi-tail (and pseudo-{zo'u} if {soi}-clause encloses a "subsentence").

Considering the simplicity of grammar and the advantage of new SOI compared with SEI, it would be better to modify SEI so that it encloses a sentence, and merge {soi} to selma'o SEI, though this change will require more {se'u}. 

Even if {sei} and {soi} are in the same selma'o, they can be semantically different: {sei} will have the same scope as UI, while {soi} will have the broadest scope over a sentence, and may take the "signified" of the sentence with {ke'a} in the clause.

By the way, on the "new soi" page, "subsentence" is suggested in {soi}-clause. Do you intend to use {zo'u} in {soi}-clause, or it simply inherited the official grammar of NU/NOI? {zo'u} in NOI- or new SOI/XOI- clauses may produce logical problem, and I want to avoid it if possible. (la zantufa-0.2 allowed "statement" including {zo'u} in NOI-clause, but it will be changed to "sentence" in the future version, and then {zo'u} in NOI-clause will be banned.)

-- 
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.