WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


Wiki page BPFK Section: Subordinators changed

posts: 14214

On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 05:54:15PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > ;noi (NOI):Incidental clause. noi is Lojban's
> > non-restrictive relative clause marker. The "relative"
> > part means that it attaches to a sumti to provide additional
> > information about that sumti.
>
> I assume a sumti is a word. {noi} attaches to a sumti to provide
> additional info about that sumti's referent(s), not about the sumti
> itself.

Fixed.

> When the sumti is a quantified expression (which does not strictly
> have referents) the issue is a bit more complex.

Too esoteric.

> > noi immediately follows a simple sumti; for descriptions smuti
> > it can appear in a variety of places, the semantics of which are
> > beyond the scope of this definition.
>
> It shouldn't be beyond the scope, because any complication that
> appears with descritpion sumti is already present with simple sumti,
> which can also be quantified.

The CLL seems to disagree with you on that point. Regardless, it's the
effects on the location relative to LE sumti that are outside of scope,
because the definition is already big enough.

> The difficulties arise with outer quantifiers, but these apply to
> description sumti as much as to simple sumti.

Sure, but the various positions do *not* apply.

> When there are outer quantifiers, the CLL rule is that relative
> clauses applied before the {ku} are as if they were applied to the
> bare (unquantified) sumti.

You can't put a {ku} after {ko'a}; this only applies to description
sumti.

> > The "non-restrictive" part means that the information in
> > the noi clause is not used to restrict the set of things that
> > the sumti noi is attached to refers to. In other words, the
> > noi bridi is true about the sumti noi is attached to, but is
> > not necessarily 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.
>
> I don't think the "in other words" part says the same as the first
> part, and I don't think it has much to do with what noi means, but it
> is not false.

"In other words" removed.

> > Generally, noi is only used when the referents of the sumti have
> > already been explained, or are obvious, and the speaker wishes to
> > give additional information.
>
> Is that true?

Yes, IME.

> > For logical scoping purposes, the scope of a noi clause is
> > entirely outside the scope of the statement in which it is
> > contained; its scope occurs at the point immediately after the scope
> > in which it was contained ends. The noi clause should be
> > considered, for scoping purposes, as occuring in its own virtual
> > sentence (techinically, its own "statement" production in
> > the formal grammar) after both the one in which it is contained and
> > all further statements that are logically connected to the one in
> > which it was contained.
>
> I think that's true for attachment to unquantified sumti. When
> attached to a sumti with an outer quantifier, the rules are a bit more
> complex. Some quantifiers don't even provide referents for a noi
> clause to apply to.

Yep. I see no way to add that to the definition without turning it into
a chapter.

> > As a side effect, movement of na ku through a sentence has no
> > effect on noi clauses.
>
> When there are quantifiers involved, this is not obvious. Consider:
>
> naku su'o broda ku noi brode cu brodi
> =? ro broda ku noi brode naku brodi
>
> If we remove the noi-clause, both sentences are equivalent.
> With the noi clause, are they still equivalent? Does the
> first one say that all brodas are brode, like the second one
> does?

I don't know. Any other logic geeks want to take a crack at this?

Even if they *are* different, I can't think of a solution.

> > ;poi (NOI):Restrictive clause. poi is Lojban's restrictive
> > relative clause marker. The "relative" part means that it
> > attaches to a sumti to provide additional information about that
> > sumti.
>
> Again, it doesn't really provide info about the sumti. In the case of
> {poi}, I wouldn't say it provides "additional" info either, that's
> what {noi} does. Anyway, it is clear what is meant, I just don't like
> the way it is expressed.

s/additional/specifying/, plus the "referants" thing, which was applied
throughout.

> > poi immediately follows a simple sumti; for descriptions smuti
> > it can appear in a variety of places, the semantics of which are
> > beyond the scope of this definition.
>
> Again, this shouldn't be the case, because any unclarity that exists
> with descriptions is already present with simple sumti.

Again, the CLL disagrees with you.

> > The "restrictive" part means that the information in the
> > poi clause is used to restrict the set of things that the sumti
> > poi is attached to refers to. In other words, out of all the
> > possible things the sumti that poi is attached to could refer to
> > (which, for example, in the case of lo dacti is a great many
> > things indeed) the sumti is actually intended by the speaker to
> > refer only to those things that the sumti could refer to for which
> > the bridi in the poi clause is also true.
>
> Again, the intent is clear but I don't like the wording.

Let me know what you think of the new version.

> > poi is often used with da to restrict da to some part of
> > all the things which exist.
>
> The referents of {da} are all the things that there are ("exist" is a
> charged word, so I wouldn't use it here), so {da poi} does restrict to
> just those that satisfy the clause.

Fixed.

> > ;vu'o (VUhO):Long scope relative clause/phrase marker. Normally,
> > a relative clause or phrase sumti binds to the last sumti to its
> > immediate left, regardless of logical connectors. To have a
> > relative clause or phrase bind to every member of a connected group
> > of sumti, place vu'o after the sumti and before the relative clause
> > or phrase cmavo.
>
> Logical connectors are not special here. It applies to all connectors

Sorry. s/logical/sumti/

> > immediately after the zi'e. Using zi'e to mix poi and
> > noi clauses (or pe and ne, and so on) is, for very subtle
> > reasons, not well defined.
>
> It shouldn't be too difficult to make some definitory statements about
> it though.

> I would say that in {ko'a noi ... zi'e poi ...} the noi clause applies
> to all the referents of ko'a, whereas in {ko'a poi ... zi'e noi ...}
> it applies to just those referents that are left after the poi
> restriction.

Left-to-right order, then? That kills my definitions for noi and poi,
though. Kills them dead.

> > || noi | PA broda noi brode cu brodi | PA broda goi ko'a cu brode .i
> > je ko'a cu brodi
>
> Works often, but not a general formula.

<sigh> It's your formula. I don't have anything better.

> > poi + ro | ro broda poi brode cu brodi | ro da poi broda zo'u da ga
> > nai brode gi brodi
> >
> > poi + su'o | su'o broda poi brode cu brodi | su'o da poi broda zo'u
> > da ge brode gi brodi
>
> These are correct, but don't really get rid of {poi}.

Whoops. Changed.

> > goi, unassigned | [sumti 1] goi [sumti 2] | [sumti 1] poi du
> > [sumti 2]
>
> This is {po'u}, not {goi}. If sumti1 has no referent to begin with,
> you can't restrict its referents to those of sumti2

Suggestions?

-Robin