[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



Le mardi 21 juillet 2015 07:45:12 UTC, la gleki a écrit :

2015-07-21 9:44 GMT+03:00 guskant <gusni...@gmail.com>:
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}. 

This would be absolutely devastating. {sei} is very similar to LE and that's the simplicity of the grammar.
I don't see any need in changing it, what is more the current grammar of SEI is more advantageous to me.



It's not simplicity of grammar but similarity of form of description sumti and inserted bridi. If {sei}-clause could enclose a sentence, the grammar would be 23 bytes smaller. If we add {soi}-clause to "free", the structure and the usage will be very similar to {sei}-clause. If we had the structure of "SOI sentence SEhU" from the beginning of Lojban, I would have never used "SEI terms selbri SEhU". 


Le mardi 21 juillet 2015 09:30:41 UTC, selpa'i a écrit :
di'e voi cusku ki fa la .guskant. ( :P )
> 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.

Let's not keep mixing topics just yet. We can make {soi} a free modifier
before worrying about doing anything to {sei}.


 
OK, I should stop by pointing out the similarity of SEI and SOI, I should not talk about my ideal. I'm very sorry for that.


> 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.)

What are the logical problems when allowing a prenex in NU/NOI/SOI? The
prenex has scope over the NU/NOI/SOI, which in turn has scope over the
main bridi.



I said only NOI and SOI/XOI, not NU. From a logical point of view, a prenex is unnecessary or rather problematic in NOI-clause, while NU clause must be able to enclose a prenex with full logical connectives.

 
    (B) lo prenu poi ro da zo'u ke'a djica lo nu ke'a viska da
        "people that are such that for all X, they want to see X"



zo'u in this fragment is logically meaningless because of lack of main bridi. If there were main bridi, the prenex could be put out:

roda zo'u ko'a prenu ije ko'a djica lo nu ko'a viska da

And then it becomes logically analyzable.
Prenex in noi-clause is only a pseudo-prenex that is logically meaningless.

 

    (C) ra troci lo ka ro da zo'u lo nu da viska ce'u cu rinka lo nu da
cisma
        "She attempts that for all X, X seeing her causes X to smile."



I said {zo'u} in NU-clause is necessary. No problem here.

 

    (D) ma'a ca ro xavdei lo ka vokta'a cu simxu, soi ku'i na ku ro da
poi jbopre zo'u lo nu da pagzu'e ke'a cu dikni
        "On every Saturday we have vocal chats, which however is such
that not every Lojbanist is such that their taking part in them occurs
regularly."



No problem here. My main problem was this: 
what if some xoi-clauses and soi-clauses in a sentence have each prenex? which prenex will be regarded as outmost? 

However, considering (D), I understood the logical property of xoi/soi-clause.
They are statements independent of the main bridi. Logically, {soi}, {xoi} and {se'u} plays the same role as {to} {toi}. Then a full statement should be allowed to xoi/soi-clauses.

 

--
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.