Relative Clauses with Cmevla

[09:36] <selckiku> i wish someone would have a name with "noi" or "poi"
[09:36] <tomoj> I like more complicated names as well
[09:37] <selckiku> in theory we have that kind of name, but in practice we never have!
[09:37] <selckiku> i think a nice name would be "la tirxu poi sipna", Sleeping Tiger
[09:37] <tomoj> {la nu spoja be bu'u le tsani}
[09:37] <selckiku> maybe i'll name someone in la mafro'i that
[09:38] <tomoj> .i la mafro'i cu mo
[09:38] <vensa> selckiku: in {la tirxu poi sipna}, the "sleeping" isn't a part of the name. is it?
[09:38] <selckiku> vensa, yes, it is
[09:38] <vensa> because it's {la}?
[09:38] <selckiku> vensa, in "la tirxu ku poi sipna", the "ku" makes it not part of the name
[09:38] <vensa> wwwwhhat?
[09:38] <tomoj> which brings up an interesting problem
[09:38] <vensa> didnt know that
[09:38] <tomoj> say we want to translate "Doubting Thomas"
[09:38] <vensa> selckiku: citation plz
[09:39] <tomoj> just like "Sleeping Tiger"
[09:39] <tomoj> you can't
[09:39] <lindar> Well, if the grammar didn't (apparently) auto-terminate cmevla, my full name would be {la .lindar. noi banli je blanu blozeile'a ku'o ju'u gai
[09:39] <tomoj> because a cmevla isn't terminated by {ku
[09:39] <tomoj> or "Alexander the Great"
[09:39] <vensa> tomoj: good point
[09:39] <vensa> I recall seeing some proposed translation of Alexander the Great tho
[09:40] <ctino> But if the gismu is at the end then you can terminate it with ku, no>?
[09:40] <tomoj> wonder what it would be
[09:40] <selckiku> vensa, here u go: it's in CLL somewher
[09:40] <selckiku> CITATION ACCOMPLISHED
[09:40] <vensa> ha
[09:40] <tomoj> .i .u'i
[09:40] <lindar> People don't study their terminators enough, so they don't know the nifty shit it can do.
[09:40] <vensa> that seems troubling
[09:41] <vensa> an "elidable terminator" should change the "Semantics" IMO
[09:41]  * ctino likes terminators. They're comforting, like hot chocolate
[09:41] <selckiku> u can put the "poi" inside after the "la", that ought to do it
[09:41] <selckiku> la poi -doubt- ku'o .tomas.
[09:41] <vensa> whaaaat
[09:41] <vensa> senpi BTW
[09:41] <selckiku> o yeah, zo senpi
[09:41] <vensa> gerna la poi senpi ku'o tomas
[09:41] <lindar> Children, pay the fuck attention: {pa lo ci broda noi blanu ku'o ku} means that all three brodas are blue. {pa lo ci broda ku noi blanu ku'o} means that the one broda we're talking about is blue, but doesn't say anything about the other two.
[09:41] <gerna> (0[{la <poi (1senpi VAU)1 ku'o> tomas} VAU])0
[09:42] <vensa> wow!
[09:42] <tomoj> uhuhh
[09:42] <tomoj> gerna la poi senpi tomas
[09:42] <gerna> (0[{la <poi (1senpi VAU)1 KU'O> tomas} VAU])0
[09:42] <lindar> Wow, does that actually work?
[09:42]  * lindar didn't think to do that.
[09:42] <tomoj> hehe
[09:42] <tomoj> pay attention child
[09:42] <vensa> lindar: thanks. I didnt pay attention to the details
[09:42] <tomoj> we are all children here :)
[09:43] <lindar> Bitchin'.
[09:43] <vensa> so {noi} can attach either to selbri or sumti?
[09:43] <lindar> No.
[09:43] <lindar> Pretty sure it can't.
[09:43] <lindar> gerna .i ko'a broda noi brode ku'o vau
[09:43] <gerna> not grammatical: .i ko'a broda _noi_ âš   brode ku'o vau
[09:43] <vensa> so whats it doing in ex1
[09:43] <vensa> ?
[09:43] <lindar> Nope.
[09:43] <lindar> It's attaching to the inner quantifier.
[09:43] <vensa> hmmm
[09:44] <vensa> oh ok
[09:44] <lindar> gerna pa lo ci broda noi brode ku'o ku
[09:44] <gerna> (0[{<pa BOI> <lo (1[{ci BOI} broda] [noi {brode VAU} ku'o])1 ku>} VAU])0
[09:44] <lindar> gerna pa lo ci broda ku noi brode ku'o
[09:44] <gerna> (0[{<(1pa BOI)1 (1lo [{ci BOI} broda] ku)1> <noi (1brode VAU)1 ku'o>} VAU])0
[09:44] <vensa> lindar: do YOU hvae the link for this?
[09:44] <lindar> No, I have the fucking grammar bot telling me I'm right.
[09:44] <lindar> Observe. =D
[09:44] <vensa> i c
[09:44] <ctino> la poi banli .aleksandr.
[09:45] <vensa> I still like to have references :)
[09:45] <vensa> nm
[09:45]  * ctino is happy now
[09:45] <vensa> the {la poi} thing is especially demanding a citation IMO
[09:45]  * vensa looks
[09:45] <ctino> Jboski likes it.
[09:46] <ctino> So it must be okay to do.
[09:46] == lindar has changed nick to la_poi_banli_je_
[09:46] <la_poi_banli_je_> Aww! character limit?
[09:46] <selckiku> jboski has some weird ideas actually
[09:46] == la_poi_banli_je_ has changed nick to lindar
[09:46] <vensa> hehe
[09:46] <selckiku> omg that name just made my whole irc text shift over
[09:46] <Twey> ‘la banli me la .aleksandr.’ I would say
[09:46] <lindar> selkik: use a better client =D
[09:46] <lindar> Like irssi
[09:47] <ctino> But that's so much longer, Twey D:
[09:47] <tomoj>
[09:47] <lindar> My client justifies to the left side of the name, not the right.
[09:47] <Twey> gerna la poi banli aleksandr
[09:47] <gerna> (0[{la <poi (1banli VAU)1 KU'O> aleksandr} VAU])0
[09:47]  * lindar hates clients that do it the other way.
[09:47] <tomoj>
[09:47] <tomoj> "LA # [relative-clauses] CMENE ... #"
[09:48] <vensa> Twey: y u need {me}?
[09:49] <ctino> Now the question is: would that be "Alexander the Great", or "The great (in fashion) Alexander" ?
[09:49] <ctino> I guess it's pretty much the same thing.
[09:49] <vensa> it is IMO
[09:49] <lindar> It doesn't say in the names chapter.
[09:50] <lindar>
[09:50] <Ledgebin> je
[09:50] <Ledgebin> kenra?
[09:50] <vensa>
[09:50] <vensa> on the bottom
[09:50] <ctino> What's with the freakin' cancer.
[09:50] <vensa> but I have ye to find {la poi}
[09:52] <Ledgebin> what does .uinai mean?
[09:52] <Ledgebin> no?
[09:52] <ctino> Unhappy.
[09:52] <Ledgebin> aha ty
[09:52] <ctino> No problem.
[09:52] == tajys [] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
[09:52] <vensa> selckiku: do you remembet where you read the {la poi} stuff?
[09:53] <tomoj> it's right there in the bnf
[09:53] <selckiku> vensa, not really.. a zillion discussions about it i think
[09:53] <ctino> Haha. I can imagine a little kid who's not getting what they want and screaming "nai nai nai nai NAI!" at the top of their lungs.
[09:53] <selckiku> we go around in circles on the same tracks, i'm used to every stop
[09:54] <lindar> Ledgebin: kenra means cancer... you are very strange for saying cancer over and over again.
[09:54] <vensa> tomoj: the bnf is not self explanatory
[09:54]  * ctino agrees with lindar
[09:54] <tomoj> no
[09:54] <tomoj> it just proves that these sentences are grammatical
[09:54] <vensa> true
[09:54] == tajys [] has joined #lojban
[09:54] <vensa> but it's not CLL :)
[09:54] <tomoj> I see only one meaningful interpretation though
[09:54] <vensa> I agree
[09:55] <vensa> still, it dont hurt to ask
[09:55] <tomoj> hmm
[09:55] <tomoj> but can you say "Thomas (who incidentally was doubting), ..."
[09:56] <tomoj> no {ku}
[09:56] <Ledgebin> kenra?
[09:56] <Ledgebin> vensa: hi
[09:56] <Ledgebin> how do i do this
[09:56] <Ledgebin> i cant understanding
[09:57] <vensa> tomoj: isnt that what {la tomas noi senpi} means be default?
[09:57] <Ledgebin> uhm
[09:57] <selckiku> do na kakne lo nu do nu jimpe
[09:57] <tomoj> who knows?
[09:57] <tomoj> the CLL doesn't specify
[09:57] <ctino> vensa: that looks correct to me.
[09:57] <vensa> I thought that's what lindar implied
[09:58] <Ledgebin> lnder
[09:58] <tomoj> {la tomas noi senpi} could either be "'Thomas', who incidentally doubts", or "'Thomas who Incidentally Doubts'"
[09:58] <Ledgebin> timojbo
[09:58] <vensa> I think it's implied because of auto-cmevla-termination
[09:58] <ctino> No.
[09:59] <vensa> so, the correlation should hold
[09:59] <ctino> Because the cmevla terminates...
[09:59] <tomoj> right
[09:59] <ctino> As vensa says.
[09:59] <tomoj> that's a valid interpretation
[09:59] <tomoj> but the CLL doesn't say this
[09:59] <vensa> {lo broda ku noi brode} ~= {la cmevlas noi brode}
[09:59] <tomoj> I think that's good though
[09:59] <ctino> But jboski does.
[09:59] <vensa> tomoj: another point for the BPFK to discuss
[09:59] <tomoj> if you want the relative clause as part of the name, put it before the cmene
[09:59] <Ledgebin> i mi na jimpe
[09:59] <vensa> I'll put that in my discussion topics as well
[09:59] <selckiku> theoretically, if the BPFK discussed points
[18:45] <vensa> hi, in continuation to an earlier topic today, I think I found another way to "get around" the problem of adding NOI to a cmevla name.
[18:46] <vensa> {la poi banli ku'o aleksander} was the first approach
[18:46] <vensa> but you couldnt say the Alexander first
[18:46] <vensa> but... how about {la me la aleksander noi banli}
[18:47] <vensa> gerna la me la aleksander noi banli
[18:47] <gerna> (0[{la <me (1[la aleksander] [noi {banli VAU} KU'O])1 ME'U> KU} VAU])0
[18:47] <vensa> seems like the {noi} still attaches INSIDE the {ku}.
[18:47] <vensa> however, does it carry the same meaning?


[18:48] == Zarutian [] has joined #lojban
[18:48] == cirzgamanti` [] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
[18:49] == cirzgamanti` [] has joined #lojban
[18:53] <@xalbo> Interesting, weird, and complicated. But it looks like it works.
[18:55] <vensa> yay!
[18:55] <vensa> I guess Id use it just for styling
[18:55] <vensa> but ki'e la xalbo

Note: it is also grammatical to say {la PA la .aleksander. noi banli} as per Chapter 6 Section 9, which gives as the name {la .aleksander. noi banli}, not {me la .aleksander. noi banli} (though a reasonable audience would probably ignore the {me} part of the name), and does not imply that there is something called {aleksander} (though, again, a reasonable audience would understand).

Created by vensa. Last Modification: Thursday 12 of June, 2014 21:16:57 GMT by mukti.