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

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

Actually I'm not sure anymore which of those {xoi} should be. Initially I made this particle as a better and more precise alternative to {fi'o}, that would parallel NOI in syntax and enable rewording any sumtcita tag as a xoi-phrase. However it's turning out that maybe there are two distinct and mutually exclusive categories of sumtcita cmavo, namely subordinating sumtcita (ka'e, ka'enai…), whose host bridi's truth value depends on the sumtcita's meaning, versus realis/non-subortinating sumtcita (ri'a, ri'anai…), whose host bridi's truth value is independent from the sumtcita's, so that there couldn't exist an all-encompassing cmavo for turning any predicate into the semantic equivalent of any sumtcita clause.
Here is the basis for supposing that sumtcita can be split into two categories, depending on whether they affect the truth value of the outer bridi that hosts them so they couldn't be removed without changing the sentence's meaning: 

NON-SUBORDINATING/INDEPENDENT TAGS:
• {mi sipna ri'a lo nu tatpi} entails {mi sipna}.
• {mi sipna ri'a nai lo nu tatpi} entails {mi sipna}.
• {mi citka se pi'o lo forca} entails {mi citka}.
• {snime carvi ca nai lo nu critu} entails {snime carvi}.

SUBORDINATING TAGS:
• {mi sipna ka'e} doesn't entail {mi sipna}.
• {mi sipna ka'e nai} doesn't entail {mi sipna}.
• {mi sipna na ku} doesn't entail {mi sipna}.
• {mi sipna va'o lo nu tatpi} doesn't seem to entail {mi sipna} in modern mainstream usage.
So it seems two versions of {xoi} would be needed for covering all these cases.
This also raises the question of whether {fi'o} is subordinating, i.e. whether {mi sipna fi'o se cumki} entails {mi sipna} or not. 

mi'e la .ilmen. mu'o


On 21/07/2015 17:12, selpa'i wrote:

la .guskant. cu cusku di'e
(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?

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.