History: Relative Clauses with Cmevla

Source of version: 6 (current)

{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] <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_ ⚠ 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> http://jbotcan.org/bnf/ [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> 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 [09:49] <lindar> It doesn't say in the names chapter. [09:50] <lindar> http://dag.github.com/cll/6/12/ [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] <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 [~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 [{CODE}{CODE(wrap="1")}[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{CODE} Note: it is also grammatical to say {la PA la .aleksander. noi banli} as per [http://lojban.github.com/cll/6/9/index.html|Chapter 6 Section 9|whatisarelation], 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).