History: Relative Clauses with Cmevla
Preview of version: 3
CODE(wrap="1")}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 <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 <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
09:42 <vensa> wow!
09:42 <tomoj> uhuhh
09:42 <tomoj> gerna la poi senpi tomas
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 <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 vau09:43 <gerna> not grammatical: .i ko'a broda _noi_ ⚠ brode ku'o vau
09:43 <vensa> so whats it doing in ex1
09:43 <vensa> ?
09:43 <vensa> hmmm
09:44 <vensa> oh ok
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 <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> Like irssi
09:47 <ctino> But that's so much longer, Twey D:
09:47 <tomoj> http://jbotcan.org/bnf/
09:47 <Twey> gerna la poi banli aleksandr
09:47 <gerna> (0{la <poi (1banli VAU)1 KU'O> aleksandr} VAU)009:47 * lindar hates clients that do it the other way.
09:47 <tomoj> http://jbotcan.org/bnf/#sumti-6
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
09:50 <Ledgebin> je
09:50 <Ledgebin> kenra?
09:50 <vensa> http://dag.github.com/cll/8/6/
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 ~Tajha@c-68-55-6-56.hsd1.va.comcast.net 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 <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 ~Tajha@c-68-55-6-56.hsd1.va.comcast.net 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 [~zarutian@194-144-84-110.du.xdsl.is] has joined #lojban
[18:48] == cirzgamanti` [~sarefo@xdsl-78-34-188-161.netcologne.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
[18:49] == cirzgamanti` [~sarefo@xdsl-78-34-188-161.netcologne.de] 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{