NOIhA (blog article)

[selpahi]

The cmavo of selma'o NOIhA are all the hype right now — everyone's
talking about them.

I wish.

Somehow most people have never even heard of NOIhA. A good while ago, in
March 2016 to be exact, I wrote what was to this day the only written
documentation of NOIhA out there. But... it's in Lojban:

http://selpahi.weebly.com/lojban/zo-xoi-joi-lo-se-srana-be-ri

I think very few people have read that article. Shocking, I know!

Well, anyway.

Since I consider NOIhA absolutely necessary, the best way to raise
awareness is to write about it in English. That is the purpose of the
present article.

https://solpahi.wordpress.com/2016/10/13/noiha/

---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[And Rosta]

Quick initial comments:

Without poi'a, the purest way to say "you dance beautifully" would be "da ge nu dansu gi melbi". Likewise "(na) da ge cumki gi nu do sipna", without soi'a. But poi'a and soi'a are convenient, and noi'a affords something genuinely new. Indeed, poi'a allows us to neatly say "I expected it to rain and it did rain" and "I expected it to rain but it didn't" as "(na) carvi poi'a I expect ke'a".

I think "poi'o'a xagji" is not quite right or necessary as described. "x leave willingly" is "x cliva poi'a x willing to ke'a", "x leaves and is willing to do so". So "x leave angrily" is "x cliva poi'a ke'a has the characteristics of lo nu x angry". Why define poi'o'a so narrowly as "poi'a ke'a has the characteristics of lo nu vo'a", when it would suffice to use poi'a plus a version of vo'a that is somehow defined so as to always point to the right x1? Or otherwise, is there a way to extend poi'o'a to cover "willingly"?

Of the syntax options, Option 2 looks best for the actual accomplished user, while Option 1 is best for those who would rather pare away some of Lojban grammar's overexuberant complexity.

--And.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[suzil]

.i .iu lo papri cu tcetce pluka .i poi'a xamgu nadgu'a sidju la melbi bangu vau .i'e .io .i denpa .ue'i tu'a lo rafske papri noi'a za'u fizbu

.ita'o ma te frica fi'o srana be lo smuni lu {mu verba cu sanga poi’o’a gleki} li'u lu {mu verba cu sanga poi’a gleki} li'u .i lo valsi jai gau loza'i cfipu se'i .u'i .i koi za'i be'u cfipu soi'a se pacna

[Susannah Doss]

Also-- Option 2 seems the most natural and easy to me.

[selpahi]

la .suzil. pu ciska di'e:

> .ita'o ma te frica fi'o srana be lo smuni lu {mu verba cu sanga

> *poi’o’a* gleki} li'u lu {mu verba cu sanga *poi’a* gleki} li'u

«lu mi sanga poi'o'a gleki li'u»

simsa

«lu mi sanga fau lo nu mi gleki li'u»

.i ku'i

«lu mi sanga poi'a gleki li'u»

simsa

«lu mi sanga .i je lo nu go'i cu gleki li'u»

(to nu xusra lo du'u lo fasnu cu gleki .i na nu xusra lo du'u mi gleki toi)

> .i lo valsi jai gau loza'i cfipu se'i .u'i .i koi za'i be'u cfipu soi'a se pacna

.i .a'o do jdika lo ka se cfipu .i ta'o mi za'o denpa lo nu do bredi lo
ka mi ctuca ce'u fo zo tu'a jo'u zo jai (to ie ie ba'e *mi* du'e roi
na'e temzi'e ca lo nu do xruti lo ka zdazva .i ta'e ku mi sipta'i ca lo
nu do co'a bredi .i zo'o ko xabju lo dotygu'e toi)

~~~mi'e la solpoi'a

[Curtis Franks]

What is a good name/description/keyword for "soi" in English?

Do adverbs always describe how the bridi was performed or can they pertain to what/how the speaker or audience is supposed to think about it or treat it? For example, an action can be done hopefully by the subject, or it can be the case that the speaker is describing what they hope to have happen. Or something can be performed quickly, or maybe the audience is supposed to be engaged for a short amount of time (entertaining the discussion quickly).

I think that more examples of how scoping works (and how to explicitly terminate it) would be beneficial. I followed, but it took several quick passes.

[Curtis Franks]

Oh, just an interesting note:

"broda poi'a purci" is the correct reëxpression for "pu broda". Tense in Lojban is aoristic; it happening in the past does not have any implications concerning that that action could not have continued into the present of future, or that another event which could be described in otherwise identical fashion cannot be happening (again) in the present or could not happen (again) in the future. The restrictive nature of "poi'a" encodes the possibility that other versions of what is otherwise the same bridi notion exist truthfully. (You got this correct, btw. I am just making an observation, which I find interesting, for the record. It might even become handy for future discussions/lessons/introductions - or this one, if you edit it (but I am not suggesting that you should do so)).

This means that we now have a symmetric and easy way to express exclusive (non-aoristic) tenses. Before, we would have needed to include "po'o" (example: ~"pu po'o broda") or to use negated AND connectives (example: "pu jenai ca jenai ba broda") in order to express this meaning. Now, we can just use "noi'a" (example: "broda noi'a purci").

___

I do worry about the interaction between "noi'a" with a temporal tense and other nontemporal tenses. Since space and time are symmetric in Lojbanic treatment, saying that it happened only in the past might mean that it did not happen at any spatial location (because the only tense applicable is the past, not any location tense). Likewise, "noi'a purci" (and nothing more) might mean that the event occurred in the past and nothing else, which means that it could not have occurred at any spatial location. Clearly, both of these interpretations are nonsensical because 'events' which occur must have done so both in some nonempty region of space and during some nonempty interval of time. Now, in the "pu po'o" case, I think that this is a much more serious (although possibly circumventable) problem; but in the "noi'a purci" case, it might be possible to make some sort of argument against it due to the nature of selbri/brivla. But I am not sure. It still seems dangerous to me.

On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 8:43:21 AM UTC-4, selpa'i wrote: