Cowan's responses to comments on changes 1-21

["Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!ctr.columbia.edu!shoulson>]

>From: CJ FINE <C.J.Fine@bradford.ac.uk>
>Date: Tue, 11 Aug 92 12:15:26 BST
>X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]

>Mark replies to Cowan:
>>
>> >Relative clauses vs. logical connectives:  I don't agree that it makes sense
>> >to attach a relative clause to logically connected sumti.  Remember that
>> >logical connection expands to separate sentences.  If this really needs to
>> >be done, use LAhE.
>>
>> Oh, no.  It is *very* sensible.  I ran into it when I started playing with
>> the Tower of Babel story.  Remember you asked me to do that one, John?
>> Well, I've been lazy about it, but I did start.  If you check your text,
>> God descended to see "the city and the tower which the sons of Man had
>> built."  I think we'd all agree that that's a *very* natural construction,
>> and that "which the sons of Man had built" obviously applies to both the
>> city and the tower.  Logically (and non-logically, for that matter)
>> conjoined sumti are as natural to language as simple ones, and are as
>> likely to be relativized as a unit.  I used a LUhI/LUhU set to handle this
>> case, as {lu'a le tcadu .e le kamju lu'u poi loi remna cu zbasu} (I thought
>> the logical {.e} worked here, but maybe not...).  It could be that termsets
>> are the best answer to this type of problem, but it is not true that this
>> type of construction is nonsensical or uncommon.

>But John specifically referred to "logical connectvies" and your example
>is better translated with a non-logical.

Well, allowing one entails allowing the other, so it amounts to the same
thing.  And I did consider using a non-logical (perhaps {ce}), though I
figured that the observation could be independent, simply "seeing one" and
"seeing the other", as if in two sentences, and thus using the logical
{.e}.  Stylistic point of contention, of course, and I'm open to
correction.

>Nonetheless, I agree with you - a logical .e is possible there, though I
>don't think it is a good translation; and in any case, there are plenty
>of examples with .a or .onai

>mu'ulu<< mi darno viska le xirma .onai le xasli .i lesego'i cu lacpu le
>karce >>li'u

>eg " I see far off a horse or donkey(. It's) pulling a cart"

>This is one way to say it, and there is another with a connection inside
>the description, "le xirma jonai xasli noi lacpu le karce", but I don't
>know how to get it with connected sumti and a noi, which is what I want
>to use. (The lojban above does not express whether the second sentence
>is restrictive or incidental).

The only way, currently, to do it is using LUhI/LUhU.  Pick the one that
makes the most sense.  I'd go with {lu'a}.  Thus:

mi darno viska lu'a le xirma .onai le xasli lu'u poi/noi ke'a lacpu le
karce

Simple enough, but I suspect common enough to warrant finding a way to do
it without the lu'a and unelidable lu'u.  Can our tired, overworked {bo}
help?  No, I think it's already in use in that place....

>kolin

~mark