Wiki page BPFK Section: Subordinators changed
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 11:43:27PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 04:23:30PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> >
> > Concise definitions for noi and poi might go something
> > like this:
> >
> > ;noi (NOI):
> snip to important part
> > With description sumti, the relative clause can also be attached
> > inside the sumti, before or after the selbri; in this case the
> > clause applies to all the referents of the sumti, whether there
> > is an outer quantifier or not. relative clause is terminated
> > with ku'o, which is often elidable.
> >
> > ;poi (NOI):
> snip to important part
> > With description sumti, the relative clause can also be attached
> > inside the sumti, before or after the selbri.
> >
> > (In the case of {poi}, the point of attachment of the clause
> > doesn't make a diference.)
>
> I don't believe this matches, even a little, the contents of
> http://www.lojban.org/publications/reference_grammar/chapter8.html
> section 6.
>
> In particular, note that *all* of those examples use "poi", not
> "noi", whereas you are saying that with "poi" it makes no
> difference. The CLL flatly contradicts you on this point.
I lied; there are some examples with {noi}, but they only apply to
(old-style) lo clauses, and seem to be a bit of a different issue,
although it's hard to tell because your way of describing it is so
completely different.
In xorlo, it would appear that the lo + noi examples require
explicitely doing something like {PA lo ro prenu noi blabi}.
-Robin