The Four Subordinators of Gua\spi: vu, ve, va, vi

[selpa'i]

Let us use this thread to discuss and improve our understanding of the differences and uses of these four subordinators.

Jim tells us the following:

[quote]

ve

A supplementary comment, giving additional information about the modified phrase, typically adding a modal case.

vu

A restrictive clause, which events of the modified phrase must satisfy, or they are thrown out of the referent set.

vi

A discursive comment, a helpful assertion by the speaker of the relation between the modified phrase and the previous sentence.

va

A supplementary assertion often stating the speaker's relation to the modified phrase.

[/quote]

We also know that "va" automatically fills its x1 with "ji" if nothing else is put there. The same seems to happen with "vi", but sometimes "vi" does not put in a "ji" but instead fills the x1 with "this sentence". I suppose it depends on the predicate that's being used.

Another thing about "va" is that it adds an incindental relative clause comparable to Lojban's {noi}, and which does not restrict the main-event, but only adds some background information.

The biggest question seems to be what the difference is between "vu" and "ve". I understand "vu" to be analogous to Lojban {poi}. The above quote says that "ve" is often used for modal cases, but in the example sentences in the RefGram, Jim uses both "ve" and "vu" in his modal case examples.

What do you think?

PS: Maybe could compile a list of example sentences that best illustrate each of these subordinators.

[John Cowan]

My reading is that "ve" is "noi" and "vu" is "poi", whereas "va" is "se'i" for attitudinals and "vi" is "se'i" for discursives.

--
You are receiving this mail because you are subscribed to the Gua\spi google group.
 
 

--
GMail doesn't have rotating .sigs, but you can see mine at http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/signatures

[Jacob Errington]

On 30 December 2012 16:44, John Cowan <johnw...@gmail.com> wrote:

My reading is that "ve" is "noi" and "vu" is "poi", whereas "va" is "se'i" for attitudinals and "vi" is "se'i" for discursives.

I think you mean {sei}, but that's also my lojbanic interpretation of it.

[fel (la gleki)]

can ve be used to express what is lojbanic {to ... toi}?

[John Cowan]

Sei, of course.  And yes, to...toi is not semantically different from noi.

--

You are receiving this mail because you are subscribed to the Gua\spi google group.
 
 

[selpa'i]

^:i \qo jan /jai

> My reading is that "ve" is "noi" and "vu" is "poi", whereas "va" is
> "se'i" for attitudinals and "vi" is "se'i" for discursives.

Right now it seems that both "ve" and "va" are non-restrictive, "vu" is
restrictive, "vi" is just simply decorative, but could also be called
non-restrictive.

The question now is if we can conceive a useful (and detectable)
difference in meaning between "ve" and "vu" when used with a normal
modal case, such as "|vV tum" for instance.

I don't see a real difference between restrictive clauses and so-called
modal cases, I only see a difference between restrictive and
non-restrictive clauses, which would be "vu" and "va" respectively. What
then, is the real difference between "ve" and "va" ?

(1) ^:i \ji /qma dae \stio ^vu tum \qkia

(2) ^:i \ji /qma dae \stio ^ve tum \qkia

(3) ^:i \ji /qma dae \stio ^va tum \qkia

"I open the door using a[the] key."

Let's try to find a useful interpretational difference between each.

|jai \qu vam

[selpa'i]

^:i \ji /jai |bir

> I don't see a real difference between restrictive clauses and so-called
> modal cases, I only see a difference between restrictive and
> non-restrictive clauses, which would be "vu" and "va" respectively. What
> then, is the real difference between "ve" and "va" ?

Well, apart from the fact that "va" always puts an automatic "ji" in the
contained predicate's first case, and "ve" does not.

So if that's all the difference there is between them, we can say that:

vu == poi
ve == noi
va == noi se'i ~ noi mi
vi == noi di'u/dei

Objections?

|jai \qu vam

[selpa'i]

Here is a different way of understanding the differences between these
four subordinators. It involves comparing their standard values.

Both "vu" and "ve" automatically replicate [the first case of] the
restricted phrase as the first case of the inner predication. "vu" is
restrictive, "ve" is supplementary.

"va" supplies a default "ji" in its first case, which makes it the best
choice for attitudinals and/or non-restrictive relative clauses that
express a relationship between the speaker and the sentence.

"vi" is like "va", but instead of "ji", it supplies a default "zgly" ( =
{lo nu go'i} ) in its first case, which is why "vi" is best suited for
discursive comments.

I think this explanation is quite clear.

|jai \qo pranay

[qu fel (la gleki)]

Probably the best cryptograhers should use the method of sequential English-->Navajo--> Lojban --> gua\spi--> Ithkuil encrypting of high security messages.

So sorry for writing this in English. More people will understand this. Tha'ts the only reason for writing in English.

I won't refer to the grammar. Let's just look at the definitions.

1. va. which,subordinate,attitude. subordinate assertion. An independent assertion about the restricted sentence or argument. Missing argument defaults to -ji. Use for attitudinals.
   
2. vu. which,subordinate. restrictive subordinate clause. The restricted relation events must fit this sentence also. Missing argument defaults to -xdro.
   
3. vi. discursive,subordinate. discursive comment. A subordinate assertion relating restricted phrase to previous discourse. Missing argument defaults to -zgly.
   
4. ve. which,subordinate. subordinate comment. A supplementary explanation. Missing argument defaults to -xdro.
6. xdro. 1st_restricted. Pronouns: Restricted Phrase 1st case

So without reading the grammar it sounds like

va = {sei mi}

vu = {sei lo nei}

vi = {sei no'a}

ve = {fi'o li'o lo nei}

Of course {sei} is very vague so it's not a precise translation.

Am I right? Does xdro refer to {lo nei}, not {lo no'a}?

Now let's look at the sentence

^:i !tara /crw !kseo ^ve -tum !vden !xgno

The rat eats the cheese with its teeth

This subordinate clause adds a modal case. The clause is ``!vden !xdro !fu -tum !vo (event)'' = ``its teeth are the tool for doing (event)'', and the asserted relation ``!tara /crw !kseo'' = ``The rat eats the cheese'' also satisfies this sub-sentence. Because of the clause we know that the rat does not gum the cheese. The effect is as if an additional case were added to ``crw-eat'' for the cutting tool.

This is very strange. Where is tum2 ????

ve copies  xdro (Restricted Phrase 1st case). It makes no sense whether it's {lo nei} of the bridi tum !vden !xgno or {lo no'a}, i.e. whether it refers to the main level bridi (!tara /crw !kseo). In any case tum2 is not filled. It should be filled with some abstraction or a link to that abstraction.

I'm thinking of vi. It clearly refers to zgly. So why not put vi here? Which argument does ve fill in here?

I think this explanation is quite clear.

So for me it's not :)

 

|jai \qo pranay

[selpa'i]

^:i \qu fel /jai

> I won't refer to the grammar. Let's just look at the definitions.
>

> 1. va. which,subordinate,attitude. subordinate assertion. An

> independent assertion about the restricted sentence or argument.
> Missing argument defaults to -ji. Use for attitudinals.

> 2. vu. which,subordinate. restrictive subordinate clause. The

> restricted relation events must fit this sentence also. Missing
> argument defaults to -xdro.

> 3. vi. discursive,subordinate. discursive comment. A subordinate

> assertion relating restricted phrase to previous discourse. Missing
> argument defaults to -zgly.

> 4. ve. which,subordinate. subordinate comment. A supplementary

> explanation. Missing argument defaults to -xdro.

> 5.
> 6. xdro. 1st_restricted. Pronouns: Restricted Phrase 1st case

Yes, I posted the definitions earlier in this thread.

> So without reading the grammar it sounds like
> va = {sei mi}

If you read the thread about replication types, you'll see that for
"va", the "ji" is only soft-replicated. It is very possible to use "va"
without referring to yourself, and it is acceptable to do so.

> vu = {sei lo nei}

Yes, but only when attaching it to an argument. If you attach it to a
sentence, it will instead be {sei lo nu no'a cu [...]}.

> vi = {sei no'a}

No, as mentioned before, "vi" soft-replicates "zgly" into the x1 if it
remains empty. It is closer to {sei [la'e] di'u/dei}.

> ve = {fi'o li'o lo nei}

I see no reason to use {sei} for the other three and {fi'o} for this
one. "ve" and "vu" are the same, except that "vu" is restrictive, and
"ve" is supplementary. (similar to poi vs noi).

> Of course {sei} is very vague so it's not a precise translation.

> Am I right? Does _xdro_ refer to {lo nei}, not {lo no'a}?

"xdro" is {lo no'a} when restricting a sentence, and {ke'a} otherwise.
These comparisons to Lojban begin to fail at some point.

> Now let's look at the sentence
>

> /^:i !tara /crw !kseo ^ve -tum !vden !xgno/ The rat eats

> the cheese with its teeth
>
> This subordinate clause adds a modal case. The clause is

> /``!vden !xdro !fu -tum !vo (event)''/ = ``its teeth are the
> tool for doing (event)'', and the asserted relation /``!tara
> /crw !kseo''/ = ``The rat eats the cheese'' also satisfies

> this sub-sentence. Because of the clause we know that the
> rat does not gum the cheese. The effect is as if an

> additional case were added to ``/crw/-eat'' for the cutting

> tool.
>
>
>
> This is very strange. Where is tum2 ????

> _ve_ copies _xdro_ (Restricted Phrase 1st case). It makes no sense
> whether it's {lo nei} of the bridi _tum !vden !xgno_ or {lo no'a}, i.e.
> whether it refers to the main level bridi (_!tara /crw !kseo_). In any

> case tum2 is not filled. It should be filled with some abstraction or a
> link to that abstraction.

Let me explain. Here is the sentence again:

(1) ^:i \tara /crw \kseo ^ve tum \vden \xgno
"The rat eats some cheese with its teeth."

The "ve tum \vden \xgno" is a subordinate clause adding a modal case.
Since any subordinator contains an event (a predication), you can
rewrite it in terms of "vo X":

(2) \vden \xdro \fu tum \X
"its teeth are the tool for doing X"

This is what fills the ve-clause in (1). The X is what is being
replicated. Here, X is the event of the restricted phrase (the main
level event), that is X = "\tara /crw \kseo". This is what fills tum2.
So no, tum2 is not empty.

Finally, as I understand it, "xgno" is {vo'a}, and "xdro" is {lo no'a}.
Just keep in mind that this only applies when restricting an argument.
When restricting an event (in other words, a sentence), there are
special rules that make it so that the event gets replicated, not one of
its arguments. This is made quite clear in the RefGram:

[quote]

* When the predicate of a subordinate clause has a case for an event,
indicated by default ``vo'' or ``bi'', the predicate is automatically
converted to put the event first.
* The restricted phrase is automatically replicated in the first case of
the clause which, if the previous rule applies, will be the event argument.

[/quote]

|jai \qo pranay