l๏ кเ๒ץкคгภเ թє lค รєlթคђเ
  • Lojban
  • In Lojban About Anything
  • Archive
  • Lojban Links
    • Proposal: New soi
    • Proposal: New voi
  • Non-Lojban
    • Toaq Dzu
    • Ithkuil
    • Gua\\spi
    • 13th Root (Mental Calculation)

Which/what - A new gadri

5/21/2015

24 Comments

 
"Which door would your brother say is the door that leads to freedom?"
Clever, but how would a Lojbanist say this when standing in front of two Lojbani brothers, one the liar, one the truth-teller?
First, let's recap how the question word ma (as well as all the other question words) behave.
ma
always has top-scope, no matter how deeply nested it appears in a sentence. (1) and (2) are equivalent:
(1) do djica lo nu mi zukte ma
     "You want me to do what?"
     "What do you want me to do?"
(2) ma poi'i do djica lo nu mi zukte ke'a
     "What is such that you want me to do it?"
     "What is it you want me to do?"
However, if we wish to restrict the referent pool of the question word, the familiar method of using poi (as in (3)) may not be semantically accurate -- the desired expansion of (3) is (4), but the actual meaning is (5). The difference might be subtle and difficult to spot, but it's there, and it means that we should find a new way to say "which/what".
(3) do pu kanpe lo nu mi cuxna ma poi taxfu
(4) ma taxfu gi'e poi'i do pu kanpe lo nu mi cuxna ke'a
(5) ma poi'i do pu kanpe lo nu mi cuxna ke'a poi taxfu
      ma poi'i do pu kanpe lo nu mi cuxna lo me ke'a je taxfu

One option might be to use noi instead of poi (as in (6)), another would be to use mo (as in (7)).
(6) do pu kanpe lo nu mi cuxna ma noi taxfu
(7) do pu kanpe lo nu mi cuxna lo mo taxfu
      "What kind of clothes did you expect me to choose?"
      "[The] what-clothes did you expect me to choose?"
Both methods leave something to be desired. Even if noi has the right semantics, it still requires a terminator and a ke'a, while using mo can be vague (since it's a tanru) and it can be awkward to use.

Therefore, I propose a new gadri X (in selma'o LO) that has the semantics of (4) but keeps the wh in-situ capability of (3). In other words, ko'a broda X brode is defined as ma brode gi'e poi'i ko'a broda ke'a.

It remains to be decided how that new gadri should be spelled. I will use mo'oi for now:

(8) mo'oi prenu pu gunta do
      "Which person attacked you?"
      "Who attacked you?"

(9) do djica lo nu mi tcidu fi mo'oi cukta
     "You want me to read which/what book(s)?"
     "What book(s) do you want me to read?"

(10) .oi sai mo'oi me do pu spofygau lo mi X-zei-tanxe doi malpre
        "Dammit, which one of you assholes broke my Xbox?!"

(11) ko na jungau la gleki lo du'u mi mo'oi kau uitki papri ca'o cnegau
        "Don't tell Gleki which wiki pages I'm changing."

(12) na vajni fa lo du'u mo'oi kau me ma'a cu pa moi klama
        "It doesn't matter which one of us goes first."

(13) lo bruna be do cu da'i xusra lo du'u mo'oi vorme cu pluta tu'a lo ka zifre
        "Which door would your brother say is the door that leads to freedom?"

What do you think?
24 Comments
la durkavore
5/20/2015 12:31:39 pm

mi zanru .i mi zanru lo nu pilno zo ge .u'i

ni'o ju'ocu'i mi na jimpe .u'u lo mupli .i ma te frica le 4moi le 5moi .i sedycro
.i do xusra lo du drata preti .i xu lo spuda ji'a cu drata .i ma ka'e spuda le 4moi fa'u le 5moi

Reply
selpahi link
5/20/2015 09:06:55 pm

ki'e piksku .i .a'o do co'u sedycro

ni'o lo vo moi zo'u «lu lo kosta li'u» mu'a drani jai te spuda .i ku'i lo mu moi zo'u na ku «lu lo kosta li'u» po'o drani jai te spuda .i «lu lo [ro] dacti poi nenri lo mi zdani li'u» ji'a drani .i ni'i bo lo ro dacti poi nenri lo mi zdani cu poi'i do pu kanpe lo nu mi cuxna lo me ke'a je taxfu .i lo se cuxna cu menre na ku lo taxfu ku po'o

Reply
la durkavore
5/21/2015 01:23:41 am

za'o na jimpe rova'e .i mu'i ma do kanpe lo nu lo ro dacti cu taxfu

danmo
6/30/2015 05:17:18 am

ŭa mi co'a jimpe ki'e .i ca lo nu tcidu cu na jimpe
.i pe'i lo ga'u velcki cu ei se pagbu lo kibykarni notci pe'u

la durkavore
5/20/2015 12:47:09 pm

ni'o ta'o ru'e mi pu'i pilno zo moi .i mu'a le 8moi zo'u xo moi be lo prena pu gunta do .i na'e melbi

Reply
gleki link
5/20/2015 04:37:46 pm

ua mi pagbu lo jai se stidi

Reply
Spheniscine (la zipcpi) link
5/22/2015 12:20:06 am

ka'e pilno zo mo'oi, poi simsa lu <ma poi> li'u, pu'o lo nu tugni fi tu'a lo ka krefu snigau lo laldo lojyjonvla

Reply
Spheniscine (la zipcpi) link
5/23/2015 04:57:31 pm

Actually, I've also been thinking about a possibly related question: how to say things like "this house" or "that book" (that I'm pointing to). Probably the most "correct" way to do this is {ti noi zdani} and {ta noi cukta}, but like {ma noi/poi}, it leaves a dangling relative clause that often must be closed by {ku'o}. (by the way I did forget a ku'o in my Lojban reply above o'anai) Other possible solutions like {lo ti zdani} (A house associated with this I'm pointing to), or {lo vi zdani} (A house near here... no sense of "I'm pointing to/referring to a specific house") aren't quite adequate.

Reply
selpahi link
5/24/2015 01:05:49 am

Somehow my previous response to your comment didn't get posted, and now I have to write another one, so it won't be as long.

{lo vi zdani} for "this house (nearby) isn't so bad (though I'll give you it doesn't necessarily include the "pointing" bit of {ti} (or the "in-mind-ness"), so it could be any house that's in the vicinity. Mainly though, {vi} doesn't cover meanings of "this" that have nothing to do with spatial distance, e.g. "this" as in "something contextually relevant" or "this thing we've been talking about".

When I worked on this problem you mention a while back (because it did bother me), what I came up with was the following pattern:

{lo metije zdani} "this house here"
{lo meruje zdani} "that house we're talking about"

It's always me ko'a je broda.

The only "problem" with this is that all referents among ko'a are always going to satisfy broda, so the {je} there is like a {poi} added to a ko'a. (cf. discussions about zo'epoi and ko'apoi). It's not logically wrong, but some people might think that it sounds slightly "off". If it wasn't for this, this solution would be perfect (in my opinion).

Reply
selpahi link
5/25/2015 03:31:37 am

Put another way, the problem is that {me ti je broda} allows the things pointed at (ti) to also have referents that do not broda, so it's exactly the same as {ti poi broda}.

Maybe if there were a non-restrictive version of {je}...

la durkavore
5/25/2015 08:00:59 am

If I understand correctly (la'a nai toi'e .u'i), wouldn't a "nonrestrictive version of {je}" be either {ju} or {seju}?

selpahi link
5/26/2015 01:08:56 am

@durkavore

Let's see...

{lo me ti ju gerku} should be truth-functionally the same as {lo me ti}, which is the same as {ti} if maximality applies. This {lo me ti ju gerku} term can be used to described dogs, but it can also be used to describe anything else, as long as it's what {ti} refers to. The {gerku} part is not adding any claims.

What about {lo me ti se ju broda}? Here we have the opposite problem that the expression refers to {lo broda}, but it needn't be in any way related to {ti}.

So I think neither is right.

What is needed is a way to claim {me ti} and {broda} in such a way that all referents of {ti} are referred to, but without using {noi} (because we're looking for a shorter way that doesn't require sub-clauses. If {no'u} or {du} had a member in selma'o ME, it would be easy, but it's not something I proposed, because it requires making new cmavo. But let's imagine for a minute that {du} is in ME, then {lo du ti je broda} would at least be guaranteed to refer to all referents of {ti}. So would {lo dube ti je broda}.

la durkavore
5/26/2015 02:42:54 am

Oh wait, then we can just {no'u}, can't we? {lo no'u ti broda} works fine.

selpahi link
5/26/2015 04:26:16 am

Ah, I mentioned {lo no'u ti broda} as an option in the comment to la zipcpi that didn't get posted.

I don't know if I like {no'u} there, plus it's not a selbri when you remove the {lo}, whereas e.g. {metije broda} is, so it's more flexible.

la durkavore
5/26/2015 08:28:19 am

Yeah, I guess then the solutions that don't involve new cmavo ({go}? zo'osai) are {lo no'u ti broda} and {lo dubetije broda}, though the second one is getting long (but maybe we can drop the {je}).

For an oddball suggestion, what about {lo broda metimoi}? (You know I love {moi}!)

Spheniscine
6/7/2015 01:57:16 pm

I'm not familiar with this use of {moi}. Is {lo memimoi} equivalent to {lo co'e pe mi} : something that's mine/associated with me?

Spheniscine (la zipcpi)
6/7/2015 02:11:07 pm

Just found the BPFK page with that additional definition of {moi}.

If so, {lo broda metimoi} suffers from the exact same problems as {lo ti broda} and {lo broda pe ti}; in that it only suggests a relationship between {lo broda} and {ti}; not an identity.

I myself have adapted your suggestion and used {lo meti broda}; the logical connection is weakened without the {je}, but I'm hoping that the {me} strengthens the connection better than a mere {lo ti broda} would, while saving syllables.

la durkavore
6/7/2015 02:13:58 pm

Well, it could always be {lo me ti moi be lo broda [bei lo ka du]}, but I guess that's a leap of faith to leave that implied.

Spheniscine (la zipcpi)
7/16/2015 03:41:08 pm

I just had another idea regarding this.

Essentially, what I want here is something that is {noi/poi}, but only accepts simple selbri descriptor like LE and doesn't open a sub-bridi. Well, this already exists, in a manner of speaking:

{ti no'u lo broda}, or {lo po'u ti broda}

What would be really nice here would be to shorten {no'u lo} and {po'u lo} - unfortunately, we can't afford the cmavo space. Maybe if {eu} was a valid diphthong... :p

Spheniscine
6/4/2015 03:23:11 am

http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/mo'oi

Reply
Spheniscine
6/7/2015 02:20:44 pm

I have also written (with some help from la cadgu'a) a somewhat radical proposal for the gadri:
http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_Yet_another_gadri_article

It repurposes the less-used gadri such as {lo'i} and {le'i}, and tightens up the definition of {le}. (so it isn't just "*the* for lo se malglixlu", but has a specific meaning)

I have also included an interesting suggestion; though I had repurposed {le'e} for anaphora, I have also discovered a previously-unused standard-Lojban solution for anaphora (which also works for cataphora if desired): using KOhA2 to make an association of the object with the text itself. {lo de'u broda} = "some broda belonging to a recent utterance"... that's quite clearly anaphorical, at least under most circumstances.

Reply
Ilmen
12/31/2016 08:05:27 am

{do pu kanpe lo nu mi cuxna lo taxfu poi mo} and {do pu kanpe lo nu mi cuxna lo mo je taxfu} are also possible options. The latter isn't necessarily wrong with ≥2-ary predicates due to argument structure merger, as {mo} can ask for a unary predicate and be satisfied by stuff like {ckaji lo ka se nelci kei}. As for {… poi mo}, the English "which" (in e.g. "which hat?") is a question adjective, and Lojban adjectives (relative clauses) usually go on the right of their target, so {poi mo} doesn't seem discordant to me.

Reply
Ilmen
7/25/2017 04:58:49 am

Well no, according to Wiktionary "which" is (in that role) an interrogative _determiner_. I think I said "adjective" because I've blindly copied what said the dictionary I most often use, which IIRC says it's an adjective, which is clearly untrue.

Reply
Edirne ECA servisi link
8/3/2022 02:09:30 pm

Edirne ECA servisi en uygun fiyat ve en hızlı servis garantisi ile sizlerle. https://www.edirneklimaservisi.com/edirne-eca-servisi/

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.