xe'e

Used for what was originally proprosed for nau, but annulled in the changes leading up to version 2.33 (I think the file can be found in parser.zip at [http://www.lojban.org/files/software/parser/)

The] proposal is to use xe'e (and maybe ne'e at some point) for the word proposed below.

If it's a modal, why is it GOI and not BAI??

It connects a modal to a sumti, like GOI. For example, we currently say (see Frank likes Betty more than Mary:

la frank. nelci la betis. ne semau la meiris.

But this is not just meant to be an abbreviation of la frank. nelci la betis noi zmadu la meiris., it's meant to be an abbreviation of le ni la frank nelci la betis cu zmadu le ni la frank nelci la meiris. This is a second meaning for ne, and would it be better to give it its own word:

la frank. nelci la betis xe'e semau la meiris.

---

CHANGE 28: (Probably ANNULLED)

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

The draft textbook had a cmavo "mo'u" used to attach a relative phrase to a

sumti 'modally'. i.e. neither restrictively or non-restrictively. As part

of an early cmavo change, "mo'u" was combine into the non-restrictive "ne"

because at the time there was not seen to be any logical distinction between

the two. This was an error.

The relative-phrase introducer "ne" is used before a tagged sumti in two

different ways: to add incidental information (the non-restrictive equivalent

of "pe"), and to attach a new sumti to the bridi, modally associating it with

some already existing sumti. Paradigm cases are:

mi nelci la .apasionatas ne fi'e la betoven.

I like the Appassionata, created by Beethoven.

and

la djan. nelci la betis. ne semau la meris.

John likes Betty more than (he likes) Mary.

respectively. In the former sentence, "ne fi'e la betoven." means no more

than "noi la betoven. finti"; in the latter sentence, however, "ne semau

la meris." does not mean "noi la meris. se zmadu", since the information is

essential to the bridi, not merely incidental. That is, John may like Betty

more than Mary, but not really 'like' Betty or Mary at all. In fact, the

second example generally means:

le ni la djan. nelci la betis. cu zmadu

le ni la djan. nelci la meris.

The amount-of John's liking Betty is-more-than

the amount-of John's liking Mary.

The confusion between the two types of "ne" is unacceptably ambiguous. The

second type is especially valuable with "semau" and "seme'a", and has seen

considerable use, but this use is contrary to the nominal definition of "ne".

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Assign the cmavo "nau" to the latter use. Since "sumti NAU tag sumti" is

really a kind of non-logical connection between sumti, it no longer makes

sense to treat it as a relative phrase; this grammar change makes "NAU tag"

a kind of non-logical connective, usable between sumti, tanru units,

operators, and operands only.

COUNTER-ARGUMENT:

This mechanism only works correctly if a second place is implicitly given

the modal or tense tag. For tenses, the second place is the space/time

origin; for the comparatives, it is what is being compared; for the causals,

it is the effect (and vice versa). But for a tag such as "bau", using the

x2 place of "bangu" simply isn't useful.

For most uses of this construction, the right thing to do is to use the

actual underlying gismu, which has all the necessary places: recast pure

comparisons using "zmadu", "mleca", or "dunli". If you want to

simultaneously make positive and comparative claims, use ".esemaubo". To

apply tags separately to the two parts of a non-logical connective ("I

in Lojban, with you in English, discuss"), use Change 30's non-logical

termset connection.

It has been argued that the standard use of "semau" in relative phrases is

logically misleading. If we are saying that "John likes Betty more than

(he likes) Mary", the essential claim is not "likes"/"nelci" but "zmadu" as

stated above, and the main bridi should therefore be "zmadu". This

essential logical structure is hidden by the status quo, and to some

extent by the proposed change. The counter-argument to this, that natural

language usage of comparison warrants an abbreviated form, is logically

unsound.

Change 28 will probably not be accepted, and is not incorporated into the

published E-BNF, but is being retained here until all interested parties

have seen the arguments on all sides.

PROPOSAL:

Clarify that "ne semau" is non-restrictive, not simply comparative. This

means that the example Lojban sentence above requires that John like both

Betty and Mary, in order for the non-restrictive "ne semau" phrase to be

true. By comparison, the English can be used if John likes Betty, but

doesn't like Mary.

This clarification requires no grammar change, but substantial reworking of

draft textbook lesson 6.

---

• xe'e was also a protoform of jai. Apparently, Nick Nicholas proposed this (http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9203/msg00039.html), although he has only dim recollections of this.