Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u

From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 23:10:30 -0400

On Sat, Oct 06, 2001 at 08:18:09PM -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
> In a message dated 10/6/2001 6:44:29 PM Central Daylight Time, 
> [email-masked] writes:
> 
> 
> > If the construction which {le} starts is a considered a separate one of what 
> > we
> > call "bridi" for convenience, then {lenei} becomes utter nonsense.
> > 
> > {la djan viska lenei}: John sees himself
> > However, if {nei} is counted as a bridi even though it is part of a {le}
> > clause:
> > {la djan viska lenei}: John sees something which is itself
> 
> As you will recall, {le nei} created a number of problems on its own. If if 
> were nonsense, then perhaps it would not be used and the problems would 
> disappear -- or thin out a bit anyhow. But anyhow, {nei} clearly IS a bridi, 
> so what occurs after {le} can be a bridi, which was the point I was making to 
> begin with. Thank you for your support, even though it goes against what you 
> just said.

Dammit, pc, this isn't a debate competition. It will not help the language to
deliberately misunderstand people who disagree with you.

* What are these problems that {le nei} created? You may be thinking of other
things involving {nei}. {le nei} was brought up to solve the {vo'a} problem.
* What follows le is a bridi by your definition, but it is not the specific
entry in the parser that we usually refer to when we say "bridi". For
example, you can't put {mi klama le zarci} in {le}. {le} creates a bridi out
of the pseudo-bridi which follows it, and takes the x1 out of it. This bridi
is not part of the sentence.
* {nei} is not a bridi. It refers to a bridi.

> <{mamta be ce'u} is what you're saying is a bridi, right?
> It is a relationship among arguments, true. What it is not is a separate level
> of a Lojban sentence, because it is preceded by {le}.
> 
> Articles like {le} refer to what would fill the x1 of a bridi which 
> corresponds
> to what comes next. They do not actually include that bridi in the sentence.>
> 
> Muddled, but I gather that the point is that, although {mamta be ce'u} is a 
> bridi by the definition, it is not something else that someone might want to 
> call a bridi -- something that constitutes a separate level in a Lojban 
> sentence. Is there a sense to this notion of level that you can spell out, 
> so that (at a guess) something after a {du'u}, say, is in a new level, but 
> something after LE is not. What about {poi} and the like? On the one hand, 
> they clearly seem to be separable and eventually parallel to the main clause, 
> on the other hand, they are just the predicate part of a LE phrase written in 
> a different way (according to one of And's tales, anyhow). 

For the purposes of clarity, let us call the specific construct of the parser
which tends to contain sumti and a brivla, and optionally ends with {vau}, a
BRIDI, and anything which is a predicate relation "lo bridi".

poi contains a new level of the sentence. du'u contains a new level of the
sentence. This is because both of these are followed by a BRIDI. {le} is not
followed by a BRIDI. In some situations, as you enjoy pointing out, the thing
that follows {le} could be a BRIDI on its own (an observative one, usually),
but that does not matter.

This does not prevent rewriting a {le} phrase with {voi}, for example - but you
would have to put a subscript on {ce'u} if there was one in the {le} phrase.
Situations like that are the reason subscripts for ce'u were proposed, after
all.

--
la rab.spir
noi sarji zo gumri