WikiDiscuss

On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 04:19:36PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> > !! Proposed Definition of noi
> >
> > ;noi (NOI):Incidental clause. noi is Lojban's
> > non-restrictive relative clause.
>
> That should be "non-restrictive relative clause marker" or something
> like that. {noi} itself is not the clause.

Fixed.

> > The "non-restrictive" part means that the information in
> > the noi clause is not sufficient to completely identify the
> > referents of the sumti that noi is attached to.
>
> That's not quite like that. The information may very well be
> sufficient in some cases (ti noi mamta mi} "this, who is my
> mother,..."
>
> The "non-restrictive" part means that the information is not used to
> select from the referents of the sumti just those that satisfy the
> clause.

I used:

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.

Also inserted for ne and no'u.

> > 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 dies in the arse.
>
> I'm not sure this is quite dictionary-style language.

Dammit, I was hoping to have that not get noticed for a while yet.

I just think that that Nick-ism should be enshrined somewhere.

> I'm not quite sure what the scope of {noi} is exactly either. In {la
> djan jinvi lo du'u ti noi mamta mi cu klama}, is the noi clause a part
> of John's beliefs or is it the speaker's comment?

That's a bit of a different question, actually.

I say that it is the speaker's comment unless "se'i nai" or "du'o la
djan" or something is used, but I think we need to look at this a bit
more.

> > The noi clause should be considerd, 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.
>
> That would mean it is not necessarily part of what John believes.

No, it doesn't. Logical scoping and abstraction scoping are seperate
issues, IMO. However, the current formalism insists that it's the
speakers comments.

> > la fengu lo smacu noi fy ke'a cpacu cu penmi le zdani ''The Mad met
> > a mouse, M (The Mad) 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.
>
> Why "the Mad"? The original was "Fury". At least make it "the Angry",
> "the Mad" makes me think of {la fenki}.

Sorry; I didn't go back to the original, and was hoping you'd check
these sorts of things for me.

> > The "restrictive" part means that the information in the
> > poi clause is intended to completely identify the referents of
> > the sumti that poi is attached to.
>
> Rather: it selects from all the referents of the sumti just those that
> satisfy the relative clause. Which I see is more or less what you say
> next, but why "completely identify"? You may not have any of them
> identified.

How about:

The "restrictive" part means that the information in the poi clause
is not used to restrict the set of things that the sumti poi is
attached to refers to.

> > poi clause is also true. poi is often used with da to
> > restrict da to some part of all the things which exist. Inside
> > a noi clause,
>
> That would be a "poi" clause.

Indeed.

> > pau re'i pat ta poi zvati le canko cu mo
> > Question to Pat: that which at the window is what?
> > Pat: What is that at the window?
>
> With demonstratives, it would seem that both {poi} and {noi} can be
> used, though {noi} makes more sense to me. The referent of {ta} is
> presumably only the thing that the speaker is asking about, so there
> is no need to further restrict it. With {poi}, it would seem to say
> "Out of all those things, what are the ones that are at the window?"

It's from Alice; what did you mean for it to mean?

> > particularily if one wishes to add another sumti to the outer
> > bridi). The "restrictive" part means that the information
> > in the voi clause is intended to completely identify the
> > referents of the sumti that voi is attached to.
>
> I think {voi} should be non-restrictive, because the speaker already
> has just the referents that they have in mind in mind. Further
> restriction seems unnecessary.

I, on the other hand, think voi should die in the arse. If we're going
to keep it, though, your point is well taken.

> > !! Examples of voi Usage
> >
> > ti voi nanmu cu ninmu
> > This which is (non-veridically) a man is a woman.
> > The classic example of voi usage, presumably referring to a case of
> > mistaken identity or a transvestite or transgendered individual.
>
> This is non-restrictive. {ti} is already identified by the time we say
> it is (non-veridicaly) a man.

Yep. CLL bug?

> > so'e po'o cuxna la cnemokca cedra voi sete pilno le se jmaji
>
> No translation?

Wasn't supposed to be there.

> > ganse vasxu le nicte vacri voi ranti
> > Breathing the night air, which is soft.
> > Presumably, voi is being used to deal with the fact that ranti
> > probably does not literally apply to air.
>
> This again seems to be a non-restrictive use.

Yep.

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"