scope of selbri tcita: Difference between revisions

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
 
mNo edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:


a  '''a'''vod'''a''', k'''a'''ma, "ethmol hi b'''a''''a"
I believe the current prescription is that scope follows left-to-right, except for {na} (or NA?), which has maximally wide scope over the bridi.


e  '''e'''r'''e'''v, bad'''e'''r'''e'''kh, m'''e'''x'''e'''s
This exception is a pointless complication that leads to confusion. It should be done away with. (The only defence of it has come from Nora (on jboske & phpbb), hingeing on the interpretation of nago'i. This is addressed on phpbb & will be recapped on the wiki in due course when we get round to writing up something on the interpretation of bridi anaphora.)


i  '''i'''vr'''i'''th, "anaxnu yord'''i'''m", b'''i'''shv'''i'''l
The scope rules, then, are as follows:


o  h'''o'''rim, x'''o'''ref, yesh l'''o'''
* outer has scope over inner
* for two elements at the same level, either (a) the former has scope over the latter, or (b) they have 'coordinate' scope (defined on [[jbocre: Discussion: Three dogs attacked four men]]). Disambiguation between (a) and (b) is done either by glorking or by BAhE-subord/BAhE-coord.


u  '''u'''lai, "mad'''u''''a h'''u''' lo ba?"
-------------


y  "b'''e'''re'shith bara...", Y'''e'''hudi(th) '', (mainly heard in religious/biblical texts, rarely in modern words like'' n'''e'''mal-t'''e''''ufa'')''
[[User:xorxes|xorxes]]:


ai  Sin'''ai''', mat'''ai''', '''ay'''om
We also need to consider the scope of quantifiers in tagged terms with respect to the scope of the tag. There seem to be two options:


au  s'''au'''nd
# Since the term appears to the right of the tag, the tag has scope over the quantifier.


ei  '''ei'''fo, '''ei'''kh, axar'''ei'''
# Since the tag is essentially an extension of the selbri, the term's quantifier has scope over the tag (as it does over the selbri too).


oi  n'''oy''', g'''oy''', '''oy'''ev
[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]]: Are you talking about {PA1 ROI PA2 broda}?


ia  '''ya'''m, '''ya'''nuar, '''ya'''d, German'''ya'''
[[User:xorxes|xorxes]]: Yes, but it applies to other tags as well. Does {di'i ze broda} mean that the event occurs regularly within each of the seven broda, or that the seven broda are regularly distributed? I think the latter has to be {di'i lo ze broda}, and that {di'i ze broda} gives the former, i.e. {di'i} is within the scope of {ze}, just like the selbri of the bridi this term belongs to.


ie  '''ye'''sh, '''ye'''led
[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]]: OK. So you prefer Option (2), & I agree (cf. {claxu} = {na ponse} with {na} with narrowest scope). But how does one express the reading where PA1 has scope over PA2? Whereas Option (1) offers an obvious way to express both readings, I'm not sure how Opt 2 would express both.


ii  '''Yi'''sra'el, baba'''yi'''th
[[User:xorxes|xorxes]]: I'd say either {PA1roi lo PA2 broda}, in which PA2 becomes part of the description of the single interval in question, or {PA1roiku ze'a PA2 broda}, i.e. split it into two terms, where PA2 intervals is under the scope of PA1 times.


io  ha'''yo'''m, "ani '''yo'''de'a"
[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]]: Okay. Then I can't see any reason for Opt 2 not to win.


iu  '''yu'''xasin
----


ua  r'''ua'''x, mad'''u'a''' (?)
pc:


ue  -
It is not clear where comments come in the general scheme of things -- after additions (but when) and before discussion. In any case (since comments seem presently to be reorded in a black hole), the whole notion of scope needs to be looked at again, probably starting with the logical forms and working backward, since the other approach has led to the present mess. Ideally, the whole preselbri pack -- and the similar BAI phrases -- should go to the front in order. But that wreaks havoc with quantifiers and can't generally be cured with something like deMorgan, short of making the most common forms {ku}d to death. If there is a solution that also solves the independent quantifier problem, so much the better (though I don't see the connection).
 
ui  -
 
uo  -
 
uu  -
 
b  '''b'''ayith, '''b'''ikur, "'''b'''arukh ha'''b'''a!"
 
c  '''sh'''alom, '''sh'''eme'''sh''', ro'''sh'''
 
d  '''d'''erekh, o'''d''', ka'''d'''uraglan
 
f  '''f'''ilosofya, sa'''f'''a, so'''f'''
 
g  '''g'''am, a'''g'''oroth, shele'''g'''
 
j  '''z''''urnal
 
k  '''k'''esef-'''k'''is, ya'''q'''ar, ra'''q'''
 
l  '''L'''ama, tha'''l'''mud, "hu sho�'''l'''"
 
m  '''m'''e'od, i'''m'''a, a'''m'''a'''m'''i
 
n  '''n'''esi'a, a'''n'''axnu, xalo'''n'''
 
p  '''p'''esakh, na'''p'''ax
 
r  '''r'''av, ha'''r'''be, yot�'''r'''
 
s  '''s'''afa, ke'''s'''ef, nixna'''s'''
 
t  '''t'''enu'a, o'''th'''i, lehi'''th'''ra'o'''th'''
 
v  '''v'''ered, Da'''v'''id, ere'''v'''
 
x  '''kh'''anuka, '''x'''ufsha, a'''kh'''shaf, rua'''x'''
 
z  '''z'''e, xa'''z'''on, a'''z'''
 
'  '''h'''em, '''h'''atzala, a'''h'''ava ''This sound tends to be swallowed in Modern Hebrew.''
 
Ulai yesh po kama shegi'oth, naxon? Aval ani xosh�v shehakol baseder--[[jbocre: .aulun.|.aulun.]]
 
''''''
 
*''In Modern Hebrew these are pronounced like lojban '''e'''. There is no equivalent of lojban '''y'''.''
** I hear the schwa in different ways in modern Hebrew: There are people pronouncing it like a very short 'e', whereas others about like the final in English 'fing'''er'''' or German 'ich geh'''e''''. (I tend to give it like in Rumanian 'Rom�n'''�'''', which seems pretty close).
 
***I've only ever heard a shva na pronounced in two ways: like a lojban ''e'' (IPA epsilon) or as a null vowel.
** BTW, pronunciation in Israel differs quite far, e.g. there are (educated) people pronouncing 'ein', 'eifo', 'eikh' as 'en', 'efo' and 'ekh'. (There also are people sophisticated enough to turn to old oriental pronunciation.)
 
***Those are indeed sometimes pronounced that way, but it is uniform among native speakers (educated or not).
**''And I still have to add that the schwa pronunciation is also taught in modern grammar books like Langenscheid's and not only in Eliezer Rieger's "Everyday Hebrew", Jerusalem 1954. ''
 
*** If they are teaching it that way, they are teaching it wrong, based on analysis of earlier versions of the language. ''A Textbook of Israeli Hebrew'' by Haiim B. Ros�n (1962) says that it is an "''e'' which is produced correspondingly to ''get''" (it uses a superscript ''e'' for a shva na and a superscript ''a'' for a khataf patakh, with no indication that they are pronounced differently from their non-superscript counterparts).
**** ''Adam, I've to admit that this puzzles me a lot, since (I just checked it anew) British-English 'fing'''er'''', German 'b'''e'''trachten/ich hoff'''e'''' and Rumanian 'Rom�n'''�'''/leag'''�'''n/adev'''�'''rul' are all represented with the same IPA character (the upsidedown-e). (I am not at all sure about whether these sounds differ slightly in pronunciation or not, but that doesn't matter here.) My modern Hebrew dictionaries give the schwa as e-superscript, yet quite a couple of modern Hebrew grammar books represent shva mobile with exactly the same IPA character in transcription, indicating that it has to be pronounced like the short 'e' in German (e.g. 'b'''e'''ginnen'). A text from Eliezer Rieger's "Everyday Hebrew", Jerusalem 1954, ("Visiting a Kibutz") also has this IPA transcription added: "gam Y'''e'''hudith halxa lsham. kibutz ze haya harishon b'''e'''eretz yisra'el." -- [[jbocre: .aulun.|.aulun.]]
 
**''But you are right so far that "correct" ;-) pronunciation is decreasing, and that I'm experiencing the schwa more and more being neglected especially by younger people (this is not very different from German language and grammar also, practised even by my junior lawyers or - sometimes still worse - by journalists of serious newspapers like "Die S�ddeutsche Zeitung".'' -- [[jbocre: .aulun.|.aulun.]]
*** High-school language teachers in Israel certainly have plenty of ways to correct their students' language, but getting them to pronounce a shva na as an IPA schwa is not one of them. At any rate, the point still stands: if the above pronunciation of ''y'' is meant for speakers of Modern Hebrew, it is wrong. If it is meant for speakers of earlier versions (doubtful with the word ''nemal teufa'' in there), then it is unclear. (It's not even certain that a shva na was pronounced as an IPA schwa in Biblical or even Tiberian Hebrew.) -- [[jbocre: Adam|Adam]]
 
**** ''I'm no longer sure about the exact value of Lojban {y}, but if it is the IPA sound mentioned above, it should be represented by Hebrew shva mobile - at least in a list like this that only is to give parallel contrasts and not at any cost exactly the same sound values.''
****''BTW, in my opinion the whole issue seems to be highly fuzzy because theoretical: e.g. in German the two 'schwa'-sounds in a word like 'b'''e'''komm'''e'''n' are not the same in spoken practice (except for - maybe - in so-called 'standard'(?) German, i.e. a couple of northern accents). Normally, the first of the two sounds is pronounced like the 'schwa'-sound mentioned by you (namely just a short 'e'). Only the second one usually comes about like those '�' in Rumanian - but I already hear my fellow citizens with northern accents protesting... ;-) I've recorded many sound samples demonstrating Rumanian pronunciation - if you'd like to get an idea of those schwas mentioned, have a look here: [http://www.fa-kuan.muc.de/AUSAMP.RXML] --[[jbocre: .aulun.|.aulun.]]''

Revision as of 17:12, 4 November 2013

I believe the current prescription is that scope follows left-to-right, except for {na} (or NA?), which has maximally wide scope over the bridi.

This exception is a pointless complication that leads to confusion. It should be done away with. (The only defence of it has come from Nora (on jboske & phpbb), hingeing on the interpretation of nago'i. This is addressed on phpbb & will be recapped on the wiki in due course when we get round to writing up something on the interpretation of bridi anaphora.)

The scope rules, then, are as follows:

  • outer has scope over inner
  • for two elements at the same level, either (a) the former has scope over the latter, or (b) they have 'coordinate' scope (defined on jbocre: Discussion: Three dogs attacked four men). Disambiguation between (a) and (b) is done either by glorking or by BAhE-subord/BAhE-coord.

xorxes:

We also need to consider the scope of quantifiers in tagged terms with respect to the scope of the tag. There seem to be two options:

  1. Since the term appears to the right of the tag, the tag has scope over the quantifier.
  1. Since the tag is essentially an extension of the selbri, the term's quantifier has scope over the tag (as it does over the selbri too).

And Rosta: Are you talking about {PA1 ROI PA2 broda}?

xorxes: Yes, but it applies to other tags as well. Does {di'i ze broda} mean that the event occurs regularly within each of the seven broda, or that the seven broda are regularly distributed? I think the latter has to be {di'i lo ze broda}, and that {di'i ze broda} gives the former, i.e. {di'i} is within the scope of {ze}, just like the selbri of the bridi this term belongs to.

And Rosta: OK. So you prefer Option (2), & I agree (cf. {claxu} = {na ponse} with {na} with narrowest scope). But how does one express the reading where PA1 has scope over PA2? Whereas Option (1) offers an obvious way to express both readings, I'm not sure how Opt 2 would express both.

xorxes: I'd say either {PA1roi lo PA2 broda}, in which PA2 becomes part of the description of the single interval in question, or {PA1roiku ze'a PA2 broda}, i.e. split it into two terms, where PA2 intervals is under the scope of PA1 times.

And Rosta: Okay. Then I can't see any reason for Opt 2 not to win.

pc:

It is not clear where comments come in the general scheme of things -- after additions (but when) and before discussion. In any case (since comments seem presently to be reorded in a black hole), the whole notion of scope needs to be looked at again, probably starting with the logical forms and working backward, since the other approach has led to the present mess. Ideally, the whole preselbri pack -- and the similar BAI phrases -- should go to the front in order. But that wreaks havoc with quantifiers and can't generally be cured with something like deMorgan, short of making the most common forms {ku}d to death. If there is a solution that also solves the independent quantifier problem, so much the better (though I don't see the connection).

Retrieved from "https://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=scope_of_selbri_tcita&oldid=76056"