[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 15:12:47 UTC, selpa'i a écrit :
la .guskant. cu cusku di'e
>          (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.

Why should the relative clause care about the main bridi? The relative
clause in (B) is like a predicate that attaches to {prenu} with {je}.
{poi ro da zo'u ...} could be rewritten {poi ckaji lo ka ro da zo'u
...}, and (B) could be rewritten as {lo prenu je ckaji be lo ka ...}.

At what point do you think does it stop being equivalent?



Relative clauses should care about the main bridi, because the bridi in relative clauses share their universe of discourse with the main bridi. About this example of fragment, I said only "logically meaningless", but it does not bring any problem by itself. 

The problem occurs in the case that plural relative clauses appears with their own prenex, sometimes nested in logical connectives. Which prenex is the outmost? How can the negations, numbers and logical connectives are transformed into a prenex normal form?



>          (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}.

This may be true for {soi}, but I'm not at all sure it's true for {xoi}.
There are two options for {xoi}: it's either restrictive or
non-restrictive. If it is one of the two, then we don't have a word for
the other and vice versa. There should really be two {xoi}. Let's call
them {Pxoi} and {Nxoi}. There is an important difference between (E) and
(F):

    (E) so'i verba cu krixa Pxoi fanza
        "Many children are yelling annoyingly."
        (There may be children there whose yelling isn't annoying)

    (F) so'i verba cu krixa Nxoi fanza
        "Many children are yelling, which is annoying."
        (Every yelling child is annoying)

Which one is {xoi} supposed to be?



If (E), xoi-clause encloses a sentence, not a statement. If (F) can be expressed by soi-clause, then (E) for xoi is useful, though I don't know which the creator of the word think of.
 

--
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.