A bug in the CLL 7.6 example 6.14).

[la arxokuna]

http://dag.github.io/cll/7/6/

For good examples of “nei” and “no'a”, we need nested bridi contexts:

6.14)  mi se pluka le nu do pensi
             le nu nei kei pu le nu do zukte
       I am-pleased-by the event-of (you think-about
             (the event-of [main bridi]) before the-event of (your acting).
       I am pleased that you thought about whether I
             would be pleased (about ...) before you acted.

6.15)  mi ba klama ca le nu do no'a
       I [future] go [present] the event-of you [repeats outer bridi]
       I will go when you do.

Acc. to jvs {nei} = pro-bridi: repeats the current bridi.

So the CLL contradicts it.

I also don't understand the meaning of example 6.14) if we assume {nei} refers to the current bridi, not the main bridi (the one that has {se pluka} as a selbri).

I suggest removing 6.14) and replacing it with something having the correct usage of {nei}.

I suggested {mi lumci lo nei} (I wash myself) but JCowan said there could be much better examples.

[Robin Lee Powell]

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/CLL,+aka+Reference+Grammar,+Errata

-Robin

> --
> 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+un...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

--
http://intelligence.org/ : Our last, best hope for a fantastic future.
.i ko na cpedu lo nu stidi vau loi jbopre .i danfu lu na go'i li'u .e
lu go'i li'u .i ji'a go'i lu na'e go'i li'u .e lu go'i na'i li'u .e
lu no'e go'i li'u .e lu to'e go'i li'u .e lu lo mamta be do cu sofybakni li'u

[Ian Johnson]

Useful examples of {nei} are somewhat hard to produce. As selbri or even seltau it is essentially useless, because the result is recursive; this is the case for 6.14. Even as sumti it's not that common, in my experience, to need {lo SE nei} and be unable to use both {vo'V} and {ri}, since this means you need nesting and a nested bridi with > 2 sumti in it.

mi'e la latro'a mu'o

--

[Jacob Errington]

{.i lo nei troci cu bebna} ;)

[la arxokuna]

On Monday, June 17, 2013 2:04:19 AM UTC+4, Latro wrote:

Useful examples of {nei} are somewhat hard to produce. As selbri or even seltau it is essentially useless, because the result is recursive; this is the case for 6.14. Even as sumti it's not that common, in my experience, to need {lo SE nei} and be unable to use both {vo'V} and {ri}, since this means you need nesting and a nested bridi with > 2 sumti in it.

vo'V is long scope

in {mi djuno lodu'u do lumci vo'a} vo'a refers to {mi} and  {ri} wouldnt work at all.

[la arxokuna]

On Monday, June 17, 2013 2:20:36 AM UTC+4, tsani wrote:

{.i lo nei troci cu bebna} ;)

Is it a joke? If not what does it mean?

[Jacob Errington]

On 17 June 2013 01:21, la arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, June 17, 2013 2:20:36 AM UTC+4, tsani wrote:

{.i lo nei troci cu bebna} ;)

Is it a joke? If not what does it mean?

It's a joke, but it'd mean "Those who try to be foolish are foolish". 

[Ian Johnson]

My negation scope was ambiguous; it was intended to be a {na'ei} negation with {.e} joined sumti, so that it's better phrased as "able to use neither ... nor ..."

[guskant]

I have a question. Is a {sei} bridi in a bridi called an embedded bridi? For example,

1) ko'a ko'e sei nei brode se'u broda

2) ko'a ko'e sei no'a brode se'u broda

In which sentence is {broda} repeated, or neither? 

On the other hand, I think a {to} sentence in a bridi is neither an embedded sentence nor a part of the bridi in this context. For example,

3) ko'a ko'e to nei brode toi broda

4) ko'a ko'e to no'a brode toi broda

in neither 3) nor 4), {broda} is repeated; or am I wrong?

A {sei} bridi is grammatically a free modifier just like a {to} sentence, but semantically a metalinguistic bridi, which is somehow similar in meaning to {BAI lonu} bridi, which is clearly an embedded bridi, in which {no'a} works.

[la arxokuna]

I can only answer to the last sentence.

in {broda fi'o brode lo nu brodi} broda is actually embedded inside *brode*. As it's roughly expanded into

{lo nu broda cu se brode lo nu brodi}.

[Michael Turniansky]

  I believe in in none of those cases does nei or no'a "work".  I don't consider that sei-se'u constructions can "see" the sentence they are talking about it.  It would make about as much sense as:

lo mamta cusku lu vo'a nitcu lo nu klama lo zarci li'u 

and claiming that "vo'a" refers to "lo mamta" (contrariwise, "lo mamta cusku lo se du'u  vo'a nitcu lo nu klama lo zarci" does work)

              --gejyspa

--

[Jacob Errington]

On 20 June 2013 11:58, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:

  I believe in in none of those cases does nei or no'a "work".  I don't consider that sei-se'u constructions can "see" the sentence they are talking about it.  It would make about as much sense as:

lo mamta cusku lu vo'a nitcu lo nu klama lo zarci li'u 

and claiming that "vo'a" refers to "lo mamta" (contrariwise, "lo mamta cusku lo se du'u  vo'a nitcu lo nu klama lo zarci" does work)

              --gejyspa

CLL 19:12 contradicts you on this point:

Since a discursive utterance is working at a “higher” level of abstraction than a non-discursive utterance, a non-discursive utterance cannot refer to a discursive utterance. Specifically, the various back-counting, reciprocal, and reflexive constructs in selma'o KOhA ignore the utterances at “higher” metalinguistic levels in determining their referent. It is possible, and sometimes necessary, to refer to lower metalinguistic levels. For example, the English “he said” in a conversation is metalinguistic. For this purpose, quotations are considered to be at a lower metalinguistic level than the surrounding context (a quoted text cannot refer to the statements of the one who quotes it), whereas parenthetical remarks are considered to be at a higher level than the context.

Thus, it is possible from within a "higher" context to refer to the contents of a "lower" context. This is why it is possible to refer to the contents of a lu-quote, but not for its contents to refer to the bridi in which that lu-quote is a sumti. Likewise, a sei-clause can use ri and other anaphoric devices to refer to what is outside it, because what is outside it is on a "lower" level.

Metalinguistic "height" according to CLL:
SEI..SEhU, TO..TOI > ordinary bridi > lu-quotes

That being said, I say that {nei} used in a sei-clause refers to the bridi of the sei-clause. This is consistent with (almost) every other use of nei. To refer to the bridi outside the sei-clause {no'a} is required.

.i mi'e la tsnai mu'o

[Michael Turniansky]

(pardon me for losing the cu/ku in my example, btw)

I stand corrected.

  --gejyspa

--

[la arxokuna]

On Friday, June 21, 2013 12:04:27 AM UTC+4, tsani wrote:

On 20 June 2013 11:58, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:

  I believe in in none of those cases does nei or no'a "work".  I don't consider that sei-se'u constructions can "see" the sentence they are talking about it.  It would make about as much sense as:

lo mamta cusku lu vo'a nitcu lo nu klama lo zarci li'u 

and claiming that "vo'a" refers to "lo mamta" (contrariwise, "lo mamta cusku lo se du'u  vo'a nitcu lo nu klama lo zarci" does work)

              --gejyspa

CLL 19:12 contradicts you on this point:

Since a discursive utterance is working at a “higher” level of abstraction than a non-discursive utterance, a non-discursive utterance cannot refer to a discursive utterance. Specifically, the various back-counting, reciprocal, and reflexive constructs in selma'o KOhA ignore the utterances at “higher” metalinguistic levels in determining their referent. It is possible, and sometimes necessary, to refer to lower metalinguistic levels. For example, the English “he said” in a conversation is metalinguistic. For this purpose, quotations are considered to be at a lower metalinguistic level than the surrounding context (a quoted text cannot refer to the statements of the one who quotes it), whereas parenthetical remarks are considered to be at a higher level than the context.

Thus, it is possible from within a "higher" context to refer to the contents of a "lower" context. This is why it is possible to refer to the contents of a lu-quote, but not for its contents to refer to the bridi in which that lu-quote is a sumti. Likewise, a sei-clause can use ri and other anaphoric devices to refer to what is outside it, because what is outside it is on a "lower" level.

Metalinguistic "height" according to CLL:
SEI..SEhU, TO..TOI > ordinary bridi > lu-quotes

Oh, nice diagram.

I have a question. What about {fi'o}  (which is (or at least supposed to be) bridi relative clause) ?

{mi xusra lo du'u do melbi i go'i}.  Here go'i states that {mi xusra lo du'u li'o}

I guess in

{fi'o xusra mi do melbi i go'i} go'i incoroprates {fi'o xusra mi} as well.

If we are to create a bridi relative clause (like e.g. {so'o'oi} in selmaho SEI) it should also incorporates such "comments" as {so'o'oi mi xusra se'u}.

Next. I guess in 

{sei mi xusra  do melbi i go'i} go'i states that "you're beautiful", but not that "I assert that you are beautiful".

Am I right?

[Jacob Errington]

On 23 June 2013 09:43, la arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 21, 2013 12:04:27 AM UTC+4, tsani wrote:

Metalinguistic "height" according to CLL:
SEI..SEhU, TO..TOI > ordinary bridi > lu-quotes

Oh, nice diagram.

I have a question. What about {fi'o}  (which is (or at least supposed to be) bridi relative clause) ?

{mi xusra lo du'u do melbi i go'i}.  Here go'i states that {mi xusra lo du'u li'o}

I guess in

{fi'o xusra mi do melbi i go'i} go'i incoroprates {fi'o xusra mi} as well.

Yes. The fi'o-clause adds a term to the bridi, which requires that the added term be on the same level as the bridi. Thus, it is included in the go'i brika'i. All other terms are copied over with go'i (except for the special rules involving {na}), so I don't see why fi'o wouldn't act the same way.

 

If we are to create a bridi relative clause (like e.g. {so'o'oi} in selmaho SEI) it should also incorporates such "comments" as {so'o'oi mi xusra se'u}.

Do you mean that the bridi relative clause should also be copied over, if we were to allocate a SEI for bridi relative clauses? I don't really understand what you're saying here.

 

Next. I guess in 

{sei mi xusra  do melbi i go'i} go'i states that "you're beautiful", but not that "I assert that you are beautiful".

Am I right?

Right. I don't think that "metalinguistic comments" should be copied over. {sei} as described in the CLL is used to refer to the text of the utterance rather than the meaning per se. Due to it's magic-word-ish nature, I don't think that it should be copied. 

I have been using {sei} for reference to the meaning of its containing bridi, using it to make ad hoc attitudinals, in a sense. 

e.g. {.i mi ba'o cliva lo zdani ca lo nicte carmi sei mi troci co mipri be fi lo mi mamta .i do zu'unai ba'o se frili ku'i lo ka [ce'u] go'i [ra'o]}

"I have left my house, deep in the night, which I tried to hide from my mother. You, on the other hand, had no trouble, in contrast, doing so (leaving the house, that is)."

I think that this more complicated example demonstrates why we wouldn't want the sei-clause to be copied in go'i: it would make this rather messy.

 

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

[la arxokuna]

On Sunday, June 23, 2013 9:50:14 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote:

On 23 June 2013 09:43, la arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 21, 2013 12:04:27 AM UTC+4, tsani wrote:

Metalinguistic "height" according to CLL:
SEI..SEhU, TO..TOI > ordinary bridi > lu-quotes

Oh, nice diagram.

I have a question. What about {fi'o}  (which is (or at least supposed to be) bridi relative clause) ?

{mi xusra lo du'u do melbi i go'i}.  Here go'i states that {mi xusra lo du'u li'o}

I guess in

{fi'o xusra mi do melbi i go'i} go'i incoroprates {fi'o xusra mi} as well.

Yes. The fi'o-clause adds a term to the bridi, which requires that the added term be on the same level as the bridi. Thus, it is included in the go'i brika'i. All other terms are copied over with go'i (except for the special rules involving {na}), so I don't see why fi'o wouldn't act the same way.

 

If we are to create a bridi relative clause (like e.g. {so'o'oi} in selmaho SEI) it should also incorporates such "comments" as {so'o'oi mi xusra se'u}.

Do you mean that the bridi relative clause should also be copied over, if we were to allocate a SEI for bridi relative clauses? I don't really understand what you're saying here.

I'm not proposing anything. I'm just asking. Should bridi relative clause be copied or not?

 

 

Next. I guess in 

{sei mi xusra  do melbi i go'i} go'i states that "you're beautiful", but not that "I assert that you are beautiful".

Am I right?

Right. I don't think that "metalinguistic comments" should be copied over. {sei} as described in the CLL is used to refer to the text of the utterance rather than the meaning per se. Due to it's magic-word-ish nature, I don't think that it should be copied. 

I have been using {sei} for reference to the meaning of its containing bridi, using it to make ad hoc attitudinals, in a sense. 

e.g. {.i mi ba'o cliva lo zdani ca lo nicte carmi sei mi troci co mipri be fi lo mi mamta .i do zu'unai ba'o se frili ku'i lo ka [ce'u] go'i [ra'o]}

"I have left my house, deep in the night, which I tried to hide from my mother. You, on the other hand, had no trouble, in contrast, doing so (leaving the house, that is)."

I think that this more complicated example demonstrates why we wouldn't want the sei-clause to be copied in go'i: it would make this rather messy.

 

Oh, and what about {to ... toi} ? They are also not copied, right? Or they are copied but {to'i ... toi} is not copied?

[Jacob Errington]

On 23 June 2013 14:29, la arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, June 23, 2013 9:50:14 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote:

If we are to create a bridi relative clause (like e.g. {so'o'oi} in selmaho SEI) it should also incorporates such "comments" as {so'o'oi mi xusra se'u}.

Do you mean that the bridi relative clause should also be copied over, if we were to allocate a SEI for bridi relative clauses? I don't really understand what you're saying here.

I'm not proposing anything. I'm just asking. Should bridi relative clause be copied or not?

I don't *think* that they should be copied, but until we have collected usage of bridi relative clauses, I can't really make up my mind. (Constructing artificial examples isn't the best way to go about this.)

If we allow them to be copied, they how do we go about overwriting them? This same question applies to sumtcita as well, however, so I'm not sure.

 

Oh, and what about {to ... toi} ? They are also not copied, right? Or they are copied but {to'i ... toi} is not copied?

I definitely think that to...toi should *not* be copied. There's no point in restating the contents of the parenthetical remark.

e.g. A: .i lo mi mamta (to ri carmi co jai fanza mi caze'aca vau ta'o toi) cu jdice lo du'u vo'a mi dunda be lo rupnu be li reno jdini

B: ua .i go'i ra'o zo'e ne ku'i li cimu

"A: My mother (she's really been annoying me these days) decided to give me twenty dollars.

B: Ah, mine too (give me money, that is), but thirty-five dollars."

In this case, the to...toi is conveniently not copied, because B doesn't want to state that B's mother has been annoying him/her these days. If B did want to state that, they they could easily add {to lo me mi moi cu simsa vau .oi}. If copying were default, then it would become necessary to explicitly negate the copied parenthetical remark.

[la arxokuna]

On Sunday, June 23, 2013 11:07:30 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote:

On 23 June 2013 14:29, la arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, June 23, 2013 9:50:14 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote:

If we are to create a bridi relative clause (like e.g. {so'o'oi} in selmaho SEI) it should also incorporates such "comments" as {so'o'oi mi xusra se'u}.

Do you mean that the bridi relative clause should also be copied over, if we were to allocate a SEI for bridi relative clauses? I don't really understand what you're saying here.

I'm not proposing anything. I'm just asking. Should bridi relative clause be copied or not?

I don't *think* that they should be copied, but until we have collected usage of bridi relative clauses, I can't really make up my mind. (Constructing artificial examples isn't the best way to go about this.)

If we allow them to be copied, they how do we go about overwriting them? This same question applies to sumtcita as well, however, so I'm not sure.

Wait, aren't sumtcita copied under the *current* grammar?