Re: [lojban] Re: soi vo'a and embedded bridi
Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)
>On Sat, 04 Aug 2001, Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) wrote:
> >soi ri, I think, since soi is attached to la deiv. (I'm willing to be
> >proven wrong on this if the book says otherwise, but failing that, I would
> >treat free modifiers attached to a sumti as if they were a kind of relative
> >clauses or phrase (and indeed they are, since the soi X could be replaced
> >by a noi bridi) and use ke'a to refer to the sumti they are attached to.
> >(Free mods can attach to other things of course.))
>
>But wouldn't "soi ri" just exchange Dave with Dave?
It is precisely because of that implication that a "ri" in the soi attached
to Dave doesn't refer to Dave. "ri" skips the current sumti if it is part
of a construct within that sumti. My statement is that a free modifier
should be considered part of the sumti construct it is attached to and
therefore ri-counting doesn't include Dave.
lojbab
--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Nick NICHOLAS
Asks Pierre:
> 1. What does this mean?:
> la suzyn djuno le du'u la jan cinynei la djiotis soi vo'a
One has to be absolute about this new found rule. Therefore, Susan knows
that Zhang fancies Jyoti, and Jyoti knows that Zhang fancies Susan.
> 2. Can one say "I saw Bob hit Dave and vice versa" with "soi"?
Yes, but no longer with vo'a: mi viska lenu la bob. darxi la deiv. soi la
bob. (or: soi le nei, or: soi ra [and pray], or: soi ri xi re)
If {vo'a} is to be a long-distance reflexive only, it has to be
long-distance all the way. Whether or not Lojban Central thought through
all the consequences in 1991, we have to be adamant about this, or else
{vo'a} becomes as vague as {ra}.
--
== == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == ==
Nick Nicholas, Breathing {le'o ko na rivbi fi'inai palci je tolvri danlu}
nich...@uci.edu -- Miguel Cervantes tr. Jorge LLambias
Pierre Abbat
>soi ri, I think, since soi is attached to la deiv. (I'm willing to be
>proven wrong on this if the book says otherwise, but failing that, I would
>treat free modifiers attached to a sumti as if they were a kind of relative
>clauses or phrase (and indeed they are, since the soi X could be replaced
>by a noi bridi) and use ke'a to refer to the sumti they are attached to.
>(Free mods can attach to other things of course.))
But wouldn't "soi ri" just exchange Dave with Dave?
phma
Nick NICHOLAS
--- In lojban@y..., "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@l...> wrote:
> At 06:13 AM 8/4/01 -0700, Nick NICHOLAS wrote:
> > > 2. Can one say "I saw Bob hit Dave and vice versa" with "soi"?
> >Yes, but no longer with vo'a: mi viska lenu la bob. darxi la deiv. soi la
> >bob. (or: soi le nei, or: soi ra [and pray], or: soi ri xi re)
> soi ri, I think, since soi is attached to la deiv. (I'm willing to be
> proven wrong on this if the book says otherwise, but failing that, I would
> treat free modifiers attached to a sumti as if they were a kind of relative
> clauses or phrase (and indeed they are, since the soi X could be replaced
> by a noi bridi) and use ke'a to refer to the sumti they are attached to.
> (Free mods can attach to other things of course.))
Well, its going into the lessons as a note, so I guess that makes it
now as official as it's ever been... (No, the book does not say otherwise.
Grumble.)
And Rosta
> 1. What does this mean?:
>
> la suzyn djuno le du'u la jan cinynei la djiotis soi vo'a
S knows that J fancies D and D fancies S.
For "S knows that J and D fancy each other":
la suzyn djuno le du'u la jan cinynei la djiotis soi loi nei
> 2. Can one say "I saw Bob hit Dave and vice versa" with "soi"?
What does "and vice versa" mean here?
--And.
Pierre Abbat
la suzyn djuno le du'u la jan cinynei la djiotis soi vo'a
2. Can one say "I saw Bob hit Dave and vice versa" with "soi"?
phma
And Rosta
> If {vo'a} is to be a long-distance reflexive only, it has to be
> long-distance all the way. Whether or not Lojban Central thought through
> all the consequences in 1991, we have to be adamant about this, or else
> {vo'a} becomes as vague as {ra}.
I fully agree, and I'm delighted that at long last we're trying to beat
some sense into the anaphora system. My feeling is that we should use
only
ri
ri xi PA
nei
no'a xi PA
no'a xi ro, no'a xi da'a PA[1]
go'i, go'e, go'e xi PA, go'o, go'o xi PA
and shun[2] ra, ru, go'a, go'u. The vo'a series are redundant but perhaps
useful for their brevity compared to {no'a xi ro}, though {no'a xi ro},
is more flexible, because it allows {xe xi PA no'a (xi ro)} and
{jai BAI no'a (xi ro)}.
[1 I suggest {no'a da'a PA} for counting down from main bridi, but {ri ni'u
PA} for counting forwards to future sumti}.]
[2 Shunned when we wish to say what me mean, not when we wish to say any
old nebulosity and trust to the intelligence of our interlocutor to
surmise our intention.]
--And.
Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)
>
>Yes, but no longer with vo'a: mi viska lenu la bob. darxi la deiv. soi la
>bob. (or: soi le nei, or: soi ra [and pray], or: soi ri xi re)
soi ri, I think, since soi is attached to la deiv. (I'm willing to be
proven wrong on this if the book says otherwise, but failing that, I would
treat free modifiers attached to a sumti as if they were a kind of relative
clauses or phrase (and indeed they are, since the soi X could be replaced
by a noi bridi) and use ke'a to refer to the sumti they are attached to.
(Free mods can attach to other things of course.))
lojbab