WikiDiscuss

On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 09:04:43AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> Mostly nitpicking...

• You*, nitpicking? Say it ain't so!

> > ;noi (NOI):Incidental (non-restrictive) relative clause
> > marker. ** The "relative" part means that it attaches
> > to a sumti to provide additional information about the referants
> > of that sumti.
>
> I would rather say: "The relative part means that it relates a
> clause to a sumti".

Added.

> > ** 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.
> > 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 would replace
>
> "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."
>
> with "The noi bridi gives additional information about the
> referents of the sumti noi is attached to."

Done. Similar forms added for ne and no'u.

> > ** 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.
>
> If you say that, then the equivalent for poi would be:
>
> ** Generally, poi is only used when the referents of the sumti
> have already been explained, or are obvious, and the speaker
> wishes to select some of them.
>
> I don't think either comment is particularly relevant to the
> definition.

They are not really intended to be integral to the definition;
they're intended to be helpful.

However, these are already damned long definitions. Dropped.

> > ** Inside a noi clause, ke'a indicates the precise place
> > of the bridi that the sumti is intended to fill, and translates
> > some uses of the English word "it".
>
> I don't know if that comment is helpful for English speakers or
> not. The combo {noi+ke'a} (or {poi+ke'a}) is what normally
> translates the relative pronouns "which", "what", "who", "where":
>
> le cukta poi mi ke'a do dunda
> The book which I gave you.
> ?The book which I gave you it.

The book such that I gave it to you.

Might as well drop it, though.

> > In other words, out of all the referants of the sumti that
> > poi is attached 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.
>
> I get the idea, but I'm not too happy with the wording of that.
> {lo dacti} gets referents when it is used in a context. It doesn't
> have a fixed set of referents for all contexts, so we can't just
> say that it has a lot of referents. The poi clause narrows down
> the referents that the speaker started out with.

How about:

In other words, out of the referants of the sumti that poi
is attached to (which, for example, in the case of lo dacti
can be a great many things indeed) the sumti is actually
intended by the speaker to refer only to those things for which
the bridi in the poi clause is also true.

-Robin