From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Mon Aug 13 18:16:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 14 Aug 2001 01:16:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 39453 invoked from network); 14 Aug 2001 01:16:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Aug 2001 01:16:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta05-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.45) by mta2 with SMTP; 14 Aug 2001 01:16:37 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.56]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010814011635.MSMY20588.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 02:16:35 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Second session on Record: anaphora Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 02:14:54 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: From: "And Rosta" pc: [...] > {vo'a, -e,-i,-o,-u} refer to the sumti occuppying the corresponding {fV} > places in the uppermost of nested bridi, i.e., the bridi in which the others > are nested. This clarifies an apparent conflict between the Book and the > cmavo list. > > {no'a [xiPA]} This repeats the bridi PA levels up from the place where it > occurs. The default {no'a} = {no'axipa} the bridi in which the occurrence is > immediately nested. The topmost bridi in the nesting chain (the one to whose > sumti {vo'V} refer) is always reachable as {no'axiro}. ADD: One level down from {no'a xi ro} is {no'a xi da'a}, two levels down is {no'a xi da'a re}, etc. > For counting > purposes, a new level begins as soon as a subordinate bridi is guaranteed: at > NU or NOI [are there others? - LE had best not count or this whole thing gets > to be too complicated]. > The ordering of the levels (from the bottom up rather than top down) > and of the default case (lowest rather than highest) were based on practical > considerations: what would most likely be used and which could be calculated > most easily. > The rule about when a new level starts is controversial, since it > allows for paradoxes: reference to incomplete bridi, to sumti that have not > yet appeared, and even self-referencing. However, given that this system > defines reference by level, any other version is totally arbitrary, and every > version allows these same problems at some point (indeed, in intrasentence > anaphora of this sort, every reference to the present or higher bridi must be > to an incomplete object, since the bridi of which the present reference is a > part, cannot be complete until after this reference is done). > > {nei} repeats the bridi in which it occurs. > This leads to more immediate paradox, since {nei} standing alone is > presumably a complete bridi, namely itself -- desperately hard to > interpret. > However, things like {le nei} are needed to repeat sumti in that bridi for > reflexives and the like when the bridi involved is not the topmost one, for > which {vo'V} are used. I insist that my syntax-based definition of the meaning of nei/no'a solves the paradoxes. But this is not terribly important, since with or without the paradoxes solves, nei/no'a are pretty useless except in the {lo se nei/no'a} form. > [I can't help wondering if, were we not now frozen in, this whole system > could have been rendered somewhat less messy. For example, to get sumti from > various levels, perhaps {vo'V[xiPA]} could have been used, avoiding the messy > bridi anaphora altogether ({vo'Vxiro} = {vo'V}). But surely it's not too late to have this much less messy system. AFAICS it's compatible with Woldy. > But if bridi anaphora is > needed, perhaps it would be better to recognize that LE too starts a > subordinate bridi and then do without {nei}, thus avoiding one round of > paradoxes and yet covering all the practical cases (I think, but have not > pushed the process too far). ] This is said too elliptically for me to understand what you mean. --And.