relative Clauses with Cmevla

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search

[09:36] <selckiku> i wish someone would have a name with "noi" or "poi"

[09:36] <tomoj> I like more complicated names as well

[09:37] <selckiku> in theory we have that kind of name, but in practice we never have!

[09:37] <selckiku> i think a nice name would be "la tirxu poi sipna", Sleeping Tiger

[09:37] <tomoj> {la nu spoja be bu'u le tsani}

[09:37] <selckiku> maybe i'll name someone in la mafro'i that

[09:38] <tomoj> .i la mafro'i cu mo

[09:38] <vensa> selckiku: in {la tirxu poi sipna}, the "sleeping" isn't a part of the name. is it?

[09:38] <selckiku> vensa, yes, it is

[09:38] <vensa> because it's {la}?

[09:38] <selckiku> vensa, in "la tirxu ku poi sipna", the "ku" makes it not part of the name

[09:38] <vensa> wwwwhhat?

[09:38] <tomoj> which brings up an interesting problem

[09:38] <vensa> didnt know that

[09:38] <tomoj> say we want to translate "Doubting Thomas"

[09:38] <vensa> selckiku: citation plz

[09:39] <tomoj> just like "Sleeping Tiger"

[09:39] <tomoj> you can't

[09:39] <lindar> Well, if the grammar didn't (apparently) auto-terminate cmevla, my full name would be {la .lindar. noi banli je blanu blozeile'a ku'o ju'u gai

[09:39] <tomoj> because a cmevla isn't terminated by {ku

[09:39] <tomoj> or "Alexander the Great"

[09:39] <vensa> tomoj: good point

[09:39] <vensa> I recall seeing some proposed translation of Alexander the Great tho

[09:40] <ctino> But if the gismu is at the end then you can terminate it with ku, no>?

[09:40] <tomoj> wonder what it would be

[09:40] <selckiku> vensa, here u go: it's in CLL somewher

[09:40] <selckiku> CITATION ACCOMPLISHED

[09:40] <vensa> ha

[09:40] <tomoj> .i .u'i

[09:40] <lindar> People don't study their terminators enough, so they don't know the nifty shit it can do.

[09:40] <vensa> that seems troubling

[09:41] <vensa> an "elidable terminator" should change the "Semantics" IMO

[09:41] * ctino likes terminators. They're comforting, like hot chocolate

[09:41] <selckiku> u can put the "poi" inside after the "la", that ought to do it

[09:41] <selckiku> la poi -doubt- ku'o .tomas.

[09:41] <vensa> whaaaat

[09:41] <vensa> senpi BTW

[09:41] <selckiku> o yeah, zo senpi

[09:41] <vensa> gerna la poi senpi ku'o tomas

[09:41] <lindar> Children, pay the fuck attention: {pa lo ci broda noi blanu ku'o ku} means that all three brodas are blue. {pa lo ci broda ku noi blanu ku'o} means that the one broda we're talking about is blue, but doesn't say anything about the other two.

[09:41] <gerna> (0[[{la <poi (1senpi VAU)1 ku'o> tomas} VAU]])0

[09:42] <vensa> wow!

[09:42] <tomoj> uhuhh

[09:42] <tomoj> gerna la poi senpi tomas

[09:42] <gerna> (0[[{la <poi (1senpi VAU)1 KU'O> tomas} VAU]])0

[09:42] <lindar> Wow, does that actually work?

[09:42] * lindar didn't think to do that.

[09:42] <tomoj> hehe

[09:42] <tomoj> pay attention child

[09:42] <vensa> lindar: thanks. I didnt pay attention to the details

[09:42] <tomoj> we are all children here :)

[09:43] <lindar> Bitchin'.

[09:43] <vensa> so {noi} can attach either to selbri or sumti?

[09:43] <lindar> No.

[09:43] <lindar> Pretty sure it can't.

[09:43] <lindar> gerna .i ko'a broda noi brode ku'o vau

[09:43] <gerna> not grammatical: .i ko'a broda _noi_ ⚠ brode ku'o vau

[09:43] <vensa> so whats it doing in ex1

[09:43] <vensa> ?

[09:43] <lindar> Nope.

[09:43] <lindar> It's attaching to the inner quantifier.

[09:43] <vensa> hmmm

[09:44] <vensa> oh ok

[09:44] <lindar> gerna pa lo ci broda noi brode ku'o ku

[09:44] <gerna> (0[[{<pa BOI> <lo (1[{ci BOI} broda]] [[noi {brode VAU} ku'o]])1 ku>} VAU])0

[09:44] <lindar> gerna pa lo ci broda ku noi brode ku'o

[09:44] <gerna> (0[[{<(1pa BOI)1 (1lo [{ci BOI} broda]] ku)1> <noi (1brode VAU)1 ku'o>} VAU])0

[09:44] <vensa> lindar: do YOU hvae the link for this?

[09:44] <lindar> No, I have the fucking grammar bot telling me I'm right.

[09:44] <lindar> Observe. =D

[09:44] <vensa> i c

[09:44] <ctino> la poi banli .aleksandr.

[09:45] <vensa> I still like to have references :)

[09:45] <vensa> nm

[09:45] * ctino is happy now

[09:45] <vensa> the {la poi} thing is especially demanding a citation IMO

[09:45] * vensa looks

[09:45] <ctino> Jboski likes it.

[09:46] <ctino> So it must be okay to do.

[09:46] == lindar has changed nick to la_poi_banli_je_

[09:46] <la_poi_banli_je_> Aww! character limit?

[09:46] <selckiku> jboski has some weird ideas actually

[09:46] == la_poi_banli_je_ has changed nick to lindar

[09:46] <vensa> hehe

[09:46] <selckiku> omg that name just made my whole irc text shift over

[09:46] <Twey> ‘la banli me la .aleksandr.’ I would say

[09:46] <lindar> selkik: use a better client =D

[09:46] <lindar> Like irssi

[09:47] <ctino> But that's so much longer, Twey D:

[09:47] <tomoj>

[09:47] <lindar> My client justifies to the left side of the name, not the right.

[09:47] <Twey> gerna la poi banli aleksandr

[09:47] <gerna> (0[[{la <poi (1banli VAU)1 KU'O> aleksandr} VAU]])0

[09:47] * lindar hates clients that do it the other way.

[09:47] <tomoj>

[09:47] <tomoj> "LA # relative-clauses CMENE ... #"

[09:48] <vensa> Twey: y u need {me}?

[09:49] <ctino> Now the question is: would that be "Alexander the Great", or "The great (in fashion) Alexander" ?

[09:49] <ctino> I guess it's pretty much the same thing.

[09:49] <vensa> it is IMO

[09:49] <lindar> It doesn't say in the names chapter.

[09:50] <lindar>

[09:50] <Ledgebin> je

[09:50] <Ledgebin> kenra?

[09:50] <vensa>

[09:50] <vensa> on the bottom

[09:50] <ctino> What's with the freakin' cancer.

[09:50] <vensa> but I have ye to find {la poi}

[09:52] <Ledgebin> what does .uinai mean?

[09:52] <Ledgebin> no?

[09:52] <ctino> Unhappy.

[09:52] <Ledgebin> aha ty

[09:52] <ctino> No problem.

[09:52] <vensa> selckiku: do you remembet where you read the {la poi} stuff?

[09:53] <tomoj> it's right there in the bnf

[09:53] <selckiku> vensa, not really.. a zillion discussions about it i think

[09:53] <ctino> Haha. I can imagine a little kid who's not getting what they want and screaming "nai nai nai nai NAI!" at the top of their lungs.

[09:53] <selckiku> we go around in circles on the same tracks, i'm used to every stop

[09:54] <lindar> Ledgebin: kenra means cancer... you are very strange for saying cancer over and over again.

[09:54] <vensa> tomoj: the bnf is not self explanatory

[09:54] * ctino agrees with lindar

[09:54] <tomoj> no

[09:54] <tomoj> it just proves that these sentences are grammatical

[09:54] <vensa> true

[09:54] <vensa> but it's not CLL :)

[09:54] <tomoj> I see only one meaningful interpretation though

[09:54] <vensa> I agree

[09:55] <vensa> still, it dont hurt to ask

[09:55] <tomoj> hmm

[09:55] <tomoj> but can you say "Thomas (who incidentally was doubting), ..."

[09:56] <tomoj> no {ku}

[09:56] <Ledgebin> kenra?

[09:56] <Ledgebin> vensa: hi

[09:56] <Ledgebin> how do i do this

[09:56] <Ledgebin> i cant understanding

[09:57] <vensa> tomoj: isnt that what {la tomas noi senpi} means be default?

[09:57] <Ledgebin> uhm

[09:57] <selckiku> do na kakne lo nu do nu jimpe

[09:57] <tomoj> who knows?

[09:57] <tomoj> the CLL doesn't specify

[09:57] <ctino> vensa: that looks correct to me.

[09:57] <vensa> I thought that's what lindar implied

[09:58] <Ledgebin> lnder

[09:58] <tomoj> {la tomas noi senpi} could either be "'Thomas', who incidentally doubts", or "'Thomas who Incidentally Doubts'"

[09:58] <Ledgebin> timojbo

[09:58] <vensa> I think it's implied because of auto-cmevla-termination

[09:58] <ctino> No.

[09:59] <vensa> so, the correlation should hold

[09:59] <ctino> Because the cmevla terminates...

[09:59] <tomoj> right

[09:59] <ctino> As vensa says.

[09:59] <tomoj> that's a valid interpretation

[09:59] <tomoj> but the CLL doesn't say this

[09:59] <vensa> {lo broda ku noi brode} ~= {la cmevlas noi brode}

[09:59] <tomoj> I think that's good though

[09:59] <ctino> But jboski does.

[09:59] <vensa> tomoj: another point for the BPFK to discuss

[09:59] <tomoj> if you want the relative clause as part of the name, put it before the cmene

[09:59] <Ledgebin> i mi na jimpe

[09:59] <vensa> I'll put that in my discussion topics as well

[09:59] <selckiku> theoretically, if the BPFK discussed points

[[[18:45]] <vensa> hi, in continuation to an earlier topic today, I think I found another way to "get around" the problem of adding NOI to a cmevla name.

[18:46] <vensa> {la poi banli ku'o aleksander} was the first approach

[18:46] <vensa> but you couldnt say the Alexander first

[18:46] <vensa> but... how about {la me la aleksander noi banli}

[18:47] <vensa> gerna la me la aleksander noi banli

[18:47] <gerna> (0[[{la <me (1[la aleksander|la aleksander]] [[noi {banli VAU} KU'O]])1 ME'U> KU} VAU])0

[18:47] <vensa> seems like the {noi} still attaches INSIDE the {ku}.

[18:47] <vensa> however, does it carry the same meaning?

[18:53] <@xalbo> Interesting, weird, and complicated. But it looks like it works.

[18:55] <vensa> yay!

[18:55] <vensa> I guess Id use it just for styling

[18:55] <vensa> but ki'e la xalbo

Note: it is also grammatical to say {la PA la .aleksander. noi banli} as per hapter 6 Section 9 whatisarelation, which gives as the name {la .aleksander. noi banli}, not {me la .aleksander. noi banli} (though a reasonable audience would probably ignore the {me} part of the name), and does not imply that there is something called {aleksander} (though, again, a reasonable audience would understand).