History: xe'e

Source of version: 1 (current)

Used for what was originally proprosed for nau, but annulled in the changes leading up to version 2.33 (I think the file can be found in parser.zip at [http://www.lojban.org/files/software/parser/) The] proposal is to use ''xe'e'' (and maybe ((ne'e)) at some point) for the word proposed below. ''If it's a modal, why is it GOI and not BAI??'' It connects a modal to a sumti, like GOI. For example, we currently say (see ((Frank likes Betty more than Mary)): ;:la frank. nelci la betis. ne semau la meiris. But this is not just meant to be an abbreviation of ''la frank. nelci la betis noi zmadu la meiris.'', it's meant to be an abbreviation of ''le ni la frank nelci la betis cu zmadu le ni la frank nelci la meiris.'' This is a second meaning for ''ne'', and would it be better to give it its own word: ;:la frank. nelci la betis xe'e semau la meiris. ---- CHANGE 28: (Probably ANNULLED) CURRENT LANGUAGE: The draft textbook had a cmavo "mo'u" used to attach a relative phrase to a sumti 'modally'. i.e. neither restrictively or non-restrictively. As part of an early cmavo change, "mo'u" was combine into the non-restrictive "ne" because at the time there was not seen to be any logical distinction between the two. This was an error. The relative-phrase introducer "ne" is used before a tagged sumti in two different ways: to add incidental information (the non-restrictive equivalent of "pe"), and to attach a new sumti to the bridi, modally associating it with some already existing sumti. Paradigm cases are: mi nelci la .apasionatas ne fi'e la betoven. I like the Appassionata, created by Beethoven. and la djan. nelci la betis. ne semau la meris. John likes Betty more than (he likes) Mary. respectively. In the former sentence, "ne fi'e la betoven." means no more than "noi la betoven. finti"; in the latter sentence, however, "ne semau la meris." does not mean "noi la meris. se zmadu", since the information is essential to the bridi, not merely incidental. That is, John may like Betty more than Mary, but not really 'like' Betty or Mary at all. In fact, the second example generally means: le ni la djan. nelci la betis. cu zmadu le ni la djan. nelci la meris. The amount-of John's liking Betty is-more-than the amount-of John's liking Mary. The confusion between the two types of "ne" is unacceptably ambiguous. The second type is especially valuable with "semau" and "seme'a", and has seen considerable use, but this use is contrary to the nominal definition of "ne". PROPOSED CHANGE: Assign the cmavo "nau" to the latter use. Since "sumti NAU tag sumti" is really a kind of non-logical connection between sumti, it no longer makes sense to treat it as a relative phrase; this grammar change makes "NAU tag" a kind of non-logical connective, usable between sumti, tanru units, operators, and operands only. COUNTER-ARGUMENT: This mechanism only works correctly if a second place is implicitly given the modal or tense tag. For tenses, the second place is the space/time origin; for the comparatives, it is what is being compared; for the causals, it is the effect (and vice versa). But for a tag such as "bau", using the x2 place of "bangu" simply isn't useful. For most uses of this construction, the right thing to do is to use the actual underlying gismu, which has all the necessary places: recast pure comparisons using "zmadu", "mleca", or "dunli". If you want to simultaneously make positive and comparative claims, use ".esemaubo". To apply tags separately to the two parts of a non-logical connective ("I in Lojban, with you in English, discuss"), use Change 30's non-logical termset connection. It has been argued that the standard use of "semau" in relative phrases is logically misleading. If we are saying that "John likes Betty more than (he likes) Mary", the essential claim is not "likes"/"nelci" but "zmadu" as stated above, and the main bridi should therefore be "zmadu". This essential logical structure is hidden by the status quo, and to some extent by the proposed change. The counter-argument to this, that natural language usage of comparison warrants an abbreviated form, is logically unsound. Change 28 will probably not be accepted, and is not incorporated into the published E-BNF, but is being retained here until all interested parties have seen the arguments on all sides. PROPOSAL: Clarify that "ne semau" is non-restrictive, not simply comparative. This means that the example Lojban sentence above requires that John like both Betty and Mary, in order for the non-restrictive "ne semau" phrase to be true. By comparison, the English can be used if John likes Betty, but doesn't like Mary. This clarification requires no grammar change, but substantial reworking of draft textbook lesson 6. ---- *__xe'e__ was also a protoform of ((jai)). Apparently, ((Nick Nicholas)) proposed this (http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9203/msg00039.html), although he has only dim recollections of this.