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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 15:47:16 EDT

In a message dated 10/6/2001 10:12:44 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> Dammit, pc, this isn't a debate competition. It will not help the language to
> 

Thank God, rab. If it were a debate competition it would be decided on 
rhetorical grounds rather than facts and rigor. And, as too often happens, 
the guy who makes the wildest claim and says it loudest would win. And has 
made a claim, tried to shift the burden of proof on to me, revised the claim 
when I didn't shoulder it, and will no doubt soon revise it again, since it 
still does not work. I understand him perfectly well, but think that what he 
means to say is either false or trivial, depending on which way he finally 
states it, and, as I noted, in any case, has no bearing on the issue at hand.

<* 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.
The basic problem with {nei} is that it is self-referential, so that it 
cannot ever succeed in actually refrring to its referent because it referent 
does not exist until it has succeeded in referring to it. Thus, it is the 
whole expression {le nei} that functions as a unit, with the {nei} part there 
just as a dummy, not a real referrer at all (but enough of a reality that it 
cannot be used for the first argument in the BRIDI). With counting {le} 
phrases as bridi in the meaning of the definition, {nei}'s work could be done 
by {no'a} with a slightly less horrific result (though actually the same 
problem can be recreated at every level, including {vo'a} -- this aprticular 
anaphora technique is theoretically deeply flawed, for all that it works more 
or less in practice).  

<* 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>

Yes, it is not a BRIDI because it contains {be} and the rest -- not because 
it doesn't have an x1. {le} doesn't make it a BRIDI out of the bridi tail 
that follows it nor does it take a BRIDI and make something else out of it by 
dropping x1 and replacing it with {le} (although that is closer). The result 
of putting {le} in front of a bridi tail IS a part of thes entence -- where 
else would it be? I think I am missing your point here. Whose "bridi" are 
you talking about, not mine and not what I understood your to be.

<* * {nei} is not a bridi. It refers to a bridi.>

It is anaphora (if it works at all): it refers to a bridi in the way that a 
pronoun refers to a noun, by standing in for it and saving us writing it 
again, not the way a word refers to a thing. That is, it is a bridi because 
it refers to a 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.>

Actually, the {ce'u} would probably still not get a subscript, since it would 
still have smallest scope, but you could move it up if you wanted -- as you 
can in any case. Notice that what ahppens in And's rule -- one version 
anyhow -- is that he makes the containing "sumti" disappear but exactly 
replaces it with a new sumti which contains a BRIDI and the same internal 
sumti and such that the whole means the same (officially) -- and this somehow 
is to prove that the internal sumti, which now is clearly at a different 
level from the sumti it is contained in was previously at the same level as 
the sumti it was contained in. I just don't see how it follows, but in any 
case the transformation that is done is trivial and has no bearing on the 
issue at hand.