From lojbab@lojban.org Wed Jun 13 14:11:41 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 13 Jun 2001 21:11:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 24202 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2001 21:11:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Jun 2001 21:11:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-2.cais.net) (205.252.14.72) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Jun 2001 21:11:11 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (193.dynamic.cais.com [207.226.56.193]) by stmpy-2.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f5DLBA497634 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 17:11:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010613170454.00dbb3d0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 17:16:28 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Position question: go'i na'i In-Reply-To: <9g8a46+m57@eGroups.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010612110209.00e1a960@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 06:07 PM 06/13/2001 +0000, A.W.T. wrote: >Repeating the {na'i} issue in the Book (p.388), I've to raise a question. > >xu do sisti lezu'o do rapydarxi ledo fetspe >na'i go'i >(so far no question: {na'i} refers to th whole bridi) >go'i na'i - stopped!!!??? >For what *grammatical* reason should it be that {na'i} now refers to >{sisti} and not the whole bridi or bridi tail or something else >within the bridi tail (maybe: {le do fetspe} - What, my wife??? I'm not >married to this woman!!!)? >I understand that it doesn't refer to x1 (= do), what would be something >like {na'i le go'i} or {le go'i na'i} It pragmatically COULD refer to the whole bridi, but we use the UI scope conventions to presume that it focuses on the selbri because the part of speech represented by go'i is the selbri. It is true that this selbri incorporates all the places of the prior bridi so that go'i is actually more like "sisti be fa mi(do) bei fe lezu'o mi(do) rapydarxi lemi(do) fetspe be'o". But unlike the latter, go'i is subject to replacement - if you were to say go'i na'i le zu'o mi rapydarxi lemi gerku, then I have replaced the x2 of sisti, and the prior value is as if unspoken (if you use the be bei construction instead of go'i and then add the sumti about gerku, the latter would be x3, and if you explicitly marked it as x2 with fe, you would be doubling up the values of x2. The fact of possible replacement/modification after the na'i means that one cannot assume that all instances of go'i na'i will be referring to the complete bridi at the time the listener hears the na'i. This would at least appear to violate the spirit of LALR(1) grammar, though YACC would not detect such a violation since it is based on the semantics of go'i. Does this make any sense? a'o lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org