WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


Wiki page BPFK Section: Subordinators changed

posts: 14214

Corrections I wholly agree with removed.

On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 12:36:36PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
>
> > !! Proposed Definition of noi
> ...
> > noi immediately follows a sumti.
>
> With a simple sumti like ko'a, yes. For a sumti like {le broda ku}
> there are three points where it can be atatched: between {le} and
> {broda}, between {broda} and {ku}, or after {ku}. The meanings can be
> different in some cases.

Oh FFS. Is that true with poi and voi too? If so, is it also true with
pe, ne, po, and so on?

Reference for this, please?

> > In other words, the noi bridi is true about the sumti noi is
> > attached to, but is not enough to pick out only the things the
> > speaker has in mind among all the possible things that the sumti
> > noi is attached to could refer to.
>
> As I said, I don't think this is necessarily true. The info in the
> bridi may very well be enough to pick those things.

s/not enough/not necessarily enough/

> > la fengu lo smacu noi fy ke'a cpacu cu penmi le zdani
> > ''Fury met a mouse, F (Fury) had acquired it (the mouse), in the
> > house.''
> > Had to re-order the translation a bit to make the English work; in
> > the Lojban the "met" part comes after the comma-delimited
> > clause.
>
> "had acquired" is wrong actually, because the noi clause is not meant
> to be in the past of the main clause. Probably the mouse was caught
> right after they met. In fact the "tail" starts like this: "Fury said
> to a mouse, That he met in the house,", but I had to add {cpacu} to
> rhyme with {smacu}.

s/had acquired/got/

> > xu naku me le cnano pe le tai tcima ne vi do
> > ''Is it not the case that those among the norm which is associated
> > with the form of the weather, which is near you?''
> > Isn't it true that the weather near you is normal?
>
> Does it really say that?

That's how I read it. Do you disagree?

> > that it is followed by another sumti. The meaning of no'u is
> > that the attached sumti is absolutely identical to the first sumti,
> > which is what the "appositive" part means.
>
> Why not just say that they have the same referents?

Because I'm trying to be gentle.

> The two sumti (i.e. the words) are normally not identical, since {ko'a
> no'u ko'a} is sort of redundant.

Point. Done.

> > In other words, the no'u sumti is associated with the sumti
> > no'u is attached to, but is not enough to pick out only the
> > things the speaker has in mind among all the possible things that
> > the sumti no'u is attached to could refer to.

s/not enough/not necessarily enough/

> This does not make much sense, since both sumti pick out exactly the
> same things.

Nope. John convinced me that no'u is definately not restrictive; you
can have that argument with him if you like.

The example that convinced me was:

ro da no'u la jeeg cu cevni

ro da po'u la jeeg cu cevni

> > that it is followed by another sumti. The meaning of po'u is
> > that the attached sumti is absolutely identical to the first sumti,
>
> Again, the referents are the same, not the word. But this is not true
> in the case of po'u: the second sumti selects some of the referents of
> the first, so the first sumti may have some referents that the second
> doesn't have.

Fixed.

> > ;zi'e (ZIhE):Relative clause/phrase joiner. Normally, a
> > relative clause or phrase sumti binds to the last sumti to its
> > immediate left, which means that it is impossible to apply more than
> > one relative marker to the same sumti.
>
> For some sumti, you can apply three relative clauses without using
> zi'e.

Example, please.

> > Using zi'e to mix poi and noi clauses (or pe and ne, and so
> > on) is, for very subtle reasons, not well defined.
>
> Shouldn't we define it?

No, we really shouldn't. Or, at least, I am not capable of so doing.

-Robin