[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jordan:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 01:08:36AM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > Jordan:
> > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 05:41:37PM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > > > Jordan:
> [...]
> > > > > I believe that there's enough text already to proove you wrong about
> > > > > that, though
> > > >
> > > > I don't need to look at Lojban text. I know from English how common
> > > > coreference is, and I know that even in my infrequent writing in
> > > > Lojban issues of how best to handle coreference have loomed large
> > >
> > > We're not just talking about coreference. We're talking about
> > > coreference within a ka abstraction at a subbridi level of more
> > > than one. Otherwise there's no problem. Since that case is *so*
> > > incredibly rare (I may even have not ever seen it), I don't think
> > > there's an issue---especially since we can use subscripts or goi
> > > ko'a if it ever happens
> >
> > We're talking at cross purposes. I had been saying that one advantage
> > to using ke'a within poi'i rather than ce'u was that it then gives
> > a nice way to do coreference, since the ke'a are coreferential when
> > repeated. In subsequent messages the point I was trying to make is
> > that glork-free anaphora is tricky in Lojban, but is frequently
> > needed; hence the potential utility of poi'i ke'a. I no longer know
> > what you were saying
>
> But, to that I said that if you use ce'u, there's no problem with
> using either simple things like "le nei" or "le no'a" for 99% of
> these (already rare) cases, or the glork-free anaphora or subscripted
> ce'u or whatever for the complicated cases
I still don't understand how you ended up with "We're not just talking
about coreference. We're talking about coreference within a ka
abstraction at a subbridi level of more than one. Otherwise there's
no problem". I thought we were just talking about coreference.
Anyway, I think we've said all that's to be said.
> That said, poi'i would make sense with ke'a (or more preferably, a
> distinct cmavo with the same behavior to avoid problems in relative
> clauses), because there's only 1 thing for it. But seka would not,
> because you can have N variables in a lambda expression
I agree. I'm undecided about whether a cmavo distinct from ke'a
is desirable. It would simplify texts a little, avoiding some
export to prenex that would otherwise be necessary. But it would
add to total of cmavo with only a slender rationale. And it looks
like a design inelegance to have a different cmavo for the
ke'a/ce'u variable in each different sort of phrase that takes
one.
> > > > I'm not sure whether ri involves glorking. What is the antecedent
> > > > of ri in {le mamta be la djan ri}, and in {le mi mamta ri}? And is
> > >
> > > In the first it is djan, in the second it is mamta, but in
> > > "le la djan. mamta ri" it would be djan. See below for why
> [...]
> > > > questions have settled answers, then ri may be glork-free
> > >
> > > ri is intended to be glork free. The rule is that the referent of
> > > the first "complete" sumti which you encounter when looking from
> > > the ri leftwards, skipping all members of selma'o KOhA, is the
> > > referent of the ri
> >
> > Why then would the antecedent be "la djan" in "le la djan mamta ri"?
> > Isn't "le la djan mamta" the first complete sumti?
>
> No. Look at the grammar and you'll see why. "la djan." is a
> complete sumti
I rely on you to look at the grammar & tell me what it says. You
find it easy; I find it hard.
Anyway, is "le la djan mamta" not a complete sumti? If it is,
how come it is "la djan" that is the *first* complete sumti?
> > How about in "ge na broda lo brode gi ri brodo"? Would that be treated
> > as gobbledygook?
>
> No. The referent of the "lo broda" is referred to by the "ri" (so
> it's the *same* broda, and not the same as repeating "lo broda")
[replies in other messages]
> [...]
> > > > As far as I know, lerfu sumti require glorking. Hang on while I
> > > > check CLL.... Not clear from the book how recentness is ranked
> > > > when sumti are within sumti, nor is it clear whether the antecedent
> > > > is always the recentest sumti containing a name or description or
> > > > whether it can be lerfu sumti ("le nanmu ... ny ... le ninmu ..
> > > > ny"), nor is it clear whether the lerfu sumti repeats the
> > > > quantification of the antecedent... and so forth.
[...]
> > > The rule for lerfu is just like for ri except that it is based on
> > > the first letter (you can use multi letters for tanru components
> > > though) of the sumti and that it is overriden if someone explicitly
> > > binds the lerfu using goi
> >
> > I take this as the rule you propose rather than what CLL says
>
> No. This is what CLL says. It says it in a semi-quishy way (like
> its stuff about default ke'a positions), but I think it's clear what
> the intent is:
>
> "There is a special rule that sometimes makes lerfu strings more advantageous
> than the regular pro-sumti cmavo. If no assignment can be found for a lerfu
> string (especially a single lerfu word), it can be assumed to refer
> to the most
> recent sumti whose name or description begins in Lojban with that lerfu."
>
> (where "if no assignment can be found" is talking about if it hasn't
> been bound with goi)
I don't object to your reading of this, but it is definitely not clear
to me that CLL's intent is what you say it is. I don't care all that
much what CLL says, and I think it's important for us to come up
with a clearer account of lerfu sumti, your reading being the basis
of such an account.
> > So anyway, in "le nanmu ... ny ... le ninmu ... ny" the antecedent
> > of the second ny is definitely le ninmu, then
>
> Provided that there's no "le ninmu" or "le nenri" or whatever in
> between
OK. For some reason I had understood it differently, but I don't
mean that as any sort of argument against your version.
> > > > Vo'V has one ambiguity that Nick intends the BF to resolve (sumti
> > > > in root vs local bridi), and another ambiguity as to whether it
> > > > repeats the quantifier of the antecedent, which ideally will also
> > > > get settled. So ideally, the BF will make it glork-free
> > >
> > > vo'[aeiou] is glork-free, essentially. Knowledge that it is supposed
> > > to be long distance is pretty widespread
> >
> > Knowledge about whether it repeats the quantifier is not widespread
>
> I think vo'a should behave just like "ri" on that issue (and in
> fact CLL may have something to say on this; I can't remember and
> don't feel like looking now though). "le go'i" is a different
> issue, because it involves a "le"
I agree.
> Like you said, though, it's a minor issue, and doesn't change it
> to non "glork-free" status
It's a minor issue in the sense that we take it for granted that it
will get resolved at some point.
> > > > > > It is not that "goi ko'a" is horrendously difficult, but are you
> > > > > > happy to use it every time you introduce a new referent in a
> > > > > > text or a paragraph or a sentence?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes. It or lerfu sumti (which are also glork-free)
> > > > >
> > > > > If I am only refering to it once or twice I'll just use things like
> > > > > "ri", "le go'i", etc though
> > > >
> > > > Does {le go'i} repeat the quantifier of the antecedent?
> > >
> > > My guess is no, it starts it over with a "ro"
> >
> > Some room for potential weirdness there, then, if x1 of go'i is
> > da, or lo broda
>
> It'd be ro of the things refered to
>
> Actually this is a more consistent way to view the "ri" ones also,
> and fits in with the brief statement on requantification that chapter
> 16 makes. So "ci le gerku cu klama .i vo ri xagji" is semantically
> bad, because you're talking about 4 out of 3 dogs
I wrote a response to this, but have deleted it. I think the best
way to discuss these issues is on the basis of a document setting
out the complete rules for anaphors.
I could ask "what does {loi go'i} mean?" or "what if the antecedent
has no referent?", but the discussion gets too fragmentary. I don't
know whether you feel like drafting a document on anaphora (-- not
so much explaining as simply documenting a full set of rules)?
> > > > Anyway, hopefully the BF will remove all this indeterminacy
> > >
> > > There's very little indeterminacy on these gadri. The quantifier
> > > question is valid, though
> >
> > I'm glad to hear that so much is settled. It would be good to
> > get all this written up in one place so that we can check it
> > all works properly and all questions are resolved
>
> *cough*
> *tries really hard not to make smartass comment about CLL*
> (oh wait I just did)
It's not in CLL. Maybe some is, but most isn't.
> > > > One place where ko'a assignment is often required is in prenexes,
> > > > which are currently underused (that is, we are not yet, I think,
> > > > very careful about which bridi a sumti is quantified in)
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what you mean by that
> >
> > If, say, you have ka within ka or NOI within NOI, then the ke'a
> > or ce'u belongs to the localmost clause it occurs in. If it
> > belongs to an outer clause, then it has to move to the prenex
> > of that clause and be assigned a ko'a, the ko'a recurring in
> > the local clause. I found that this is not at all a rare occurrence
>
> I agree that that needs to be done in those cases
>
> I do not agree that this is not rare. In fact, I think it's very
> rare
I found when writing that it is not rare as one option among a
range of candidate locutions nor even rare as the best (by my
lights). I know that other people's style is different, and I
lack the competence to know how much this is purely stylistic
and how much it is because other people tend to be less clued
in to logical matters and use of prenexes and so forth. You may
scoff at my talking about what I found rare in writing when my
writing in any given year is so meagre. But I find that I learn
a lot even from writing a couple of paragraphs, given that I am
thinking very carefully about every detail of the meaning I want
to express, and the meaning expressed by what I've written. Of
course, it makes the writing very laborious too, and not at all
spontaneous.
--And.