Relative clause paper, part 1 of 2

Relative Clauses, Which Make Sumti Even More Complicated
$ Revision: $

1.  What Are You Pointing At?

	poi	POI	restrictive relative clause introducer
	ke'a	GOhA	relative pro-sumti
	ku'o	KUhO	relative clause terminator

Let us think about the problem of what we are pointing at
when we are pointing at something.  In Lojban, we can refer
to what we are pointing at by using the pro-sumti "ti"
if it is nearby, or "ta" if it is somewhat further away,
or "tu" if it is distant.  (Pro-sumti are explained in
full elsewhere.)

However, even with the assistance of a pointing finger,
or pointing lips, or whatever may be appropriate in the
local culture, it is often hard to tell just what is being
pointed at.  Suppose one is pointing at a person, and says

1.1)	ti cu barda
	This-one is-big.

What is the referent of "ti"?  Is it the person?  Or perhaps
it is the person's nose?  Or even (for "ti" can be plural
as well as singular, and mean "these ones" as well as "this
one") the pores on the person's nose?

To help solve this problem, Lojban allows a construction
called a relative clause.  Relative clauses are usually
attached to the end of sumti, but there are other places
where they can go as well, as explained later in this paper.
A relative clause begins with a word of selma'o NOI, and
ends with the elidable terminator "ku'o" (of selma'o KUhO).
As you might suppose, "noi" is a cmavo of selma'o NOI;
however, first we will discuss the cmavo "poi", which also
belongs to selma'o NOI.

In between the "poi" and the "ku'o" appears a full bridi,
with the same syntax as any other bridi.  Anywhere within
the bridi of a relative clause, the pro-sumti "ke'a" (of
selma'o KOhA) may be used, and it stands for the sumti
to which the relative clause is attached.  Here are some
examples before we go any further:

1.2)	ti poi ke'a prenu ku'o cu barda
	This-thing such-that( IT is-a-person ) is-large.
	This thing which is a person is big.
	This person is big.

1.3)	ti poi ke'a nazbi ku'o cu barda
	This-thing such-that( IT is-a-nose ) is-large.
	This thing which is a nose is big.
	This nose is big.

1.4)	ti poi ke'a nazbi kapkevna ku'o cu barda
	This-thing such-that( IT is-a-nose-type-of skin-hole ) is-big.
	These things which are nose-pores are big.
	These nose-pores are big.

In the literal translations throughout this paper, the word
IT, capitalized, is used to represent the cmavo "ke'a".  In
each case, it serves to represent the sumti (in Examples 1.2
through 1.4, the cmavo "ti") to which the relative clause is
attached.

Of course, there is no reason why "ke'a" needs to appear in
the x1 place of a relative clause bridi; it can appear in
any place, or indeed even in a sub-bridi within the
relative clause bridi.  Here are two more examples:

1.5)	tu poi le mlatu pu lacpu ke'a ku'o cu ratcu
	That-distant-thing such-that( the cat [past] drags IT ) is-a-rat.
	That thing which the cat dragged is a rat.
	What the cat dragged is a rat.

1.6)	ta poi mi djica le nu mi ponse ke'a [kei] ku'o cu bloti
	That-thing such-that( I desire the event-of( I own IT ) ) is-a-boat.
	That thing that I want to own is a boat.

In Example 1.6, "ke'a" appears in an abstraction clause
(abstractions are explained elsewhere) within a relative
clause.

As stated before, "ku'o" is an elidable terminator, and
in fact it is almost always elidable.  Throughout the rest
of this paper, "ku'o" will not be written in any of the
examples unless it is absolutely required.  Furthermore,
"ke'a" can often be omitted if its place is clear enough;
thus, Example 1.2 can be written:

1.7)	ti poi prenu cu barda
	That which is-a-person is-big.
	That person is big.

without any change in meaning.  Note that "poi" is translated
"which" rather than "such-that" when "ke'a" has been omitted
from the x1 place of the relative clause bridi; this change
in annotation is solely to make the literal translations
read more smoothly.


2.  Incidental Relative Clauses

	noi	NOI	incidental relative clause introducer

There are two basic kinds of relative clauses: restrictive
relative clauses introduced by "poi", and incidental
(sometimes called simply "non-restrictive") relative clauses
introduced by "noi".  The difference between restrictive
and incidental relative clauses is that restrictive clauses
provide essential information about the sumti to which they
are attached, whereas incidental relative clauses provide
additional information which is helpful to the listener
but is not essential for identifying the referent of the
sumti.  All of the examples in Section 1 are restrictive
relative clauses: the information in the relative clause
is essential to identifying what the speaker is pointing to.

Consider the following examples:

2.1)	le gerku poi blanu cu barda
	The dog which is-blue is-large.
	The dog which is blue is large.

2.2)	le gerku noi blanu cu barda
	The dog incidentally-which is-blue is-large.
	The dog, which is blue, is large.

In Example 2.1, the information conveyed by "poi blanu"
is essential to identifying the dog in question: it restricts
the possible referents from dogs in general to dogs that are
blue.  This is why "poi" relative clauses are called
restrictive.  In Example 2.2, on the other hand, the dog
which is referred to has already been identified clearly,
and the relative clause "noi blanu" just provides additional
information about it.

In English, the distinction between restrictive and incidental
relative clauses is expressed in writing by surrounding
incidental, but not restrictive, clauses with commas.  These
commas are functioning as parentheses, because incidental
relative clauses are essentially parenthetical.  This distinction
in punctuation is represented in speech by a difference in
tone of voice.  In addition, English restrictive relative clauses can
be introduced by "that" as well as "which" and "who", whereas
incidental relative clauses cannot begin with "that".  Lojban,
however, always uses the cmavo "poi" and "noi" rather than
punctuation or intonation to make the distinction.

Here are more examples of incidental relative clauses:

2.3)	mi noi jdice cu zvati
	I who-incidentally am-a-judge am-at [some-place].
	I, a judge, am present.

In this example, "mi" is already sufficiently restricted, and
any additional information is being provided solely for the
listener's edification.

2.4)	xu do viska le mi karce noi blabi
	[True?] You see my car incidentally-which is-white.
	Do you see my car, which is white?

In Example 2.4, the speaker is presumed to have only
one car, and is providing incidental information that it is white.
Contrast Example 2.5 with a restrictive relative clause:

2.5)	xu do viska le mi karce poi blabi
	[True?] You see my car which is-white.
	Do you see my car that is white?
	Do you see my white car?

Here the speaker probably has several cars, and is restricting
the referent of the sumti "le mi karce" (and thereby the
listener's attention) to the white one only.  Example 2.5
means much the same as Example 2.6, which does not
use a relative clause:

2.6)	xu do viska le mi blabi karce
	[True?] You see my white car.
	Do you see my white car?

So a restrictive relative clause attached to a description
can often mean the same as a description involving a tanru.
However, "blabi karce", like all tanru, is somewhat vague: in
principle, it might refer to a car which carries white things,
or even express some more complicated concept involving
whiteness and car-ness; the restrictive relative clause of
Example 2.5 can only refer to a car which is white, not to
any more complex or extended concept.


3.  Relative Phrases

	pe	GOI	restrictive association
	po	GOI	restrictive possession
	po'e	GOI	restrictive intrinsic possession
	po'u	GOI	restrictive identification
	ne	GOI	incidental association
	no'u	GOI	incidental identification
	ge'u	GEhU	relative phrase terminator

There are certain relative clauses whose selbri are frequently
used in Lojban, and have short-cut means of expression using
a relative phrase.  Relative phrases are introduced by cmavo
of selma'o GOI, and consist of a GOI cmavo followed by a single
sumti.  Each of them is exhibited below, paired with an
example containing an equivalent relative clause.

3.1)	le stizu pe mi cu blanu
	The chair associated-with me is-blue.
	My chair is blue.

3.2)	le stizu poi ke'a srana mi cu blanu
	The chair such-that( IT is-associated-with me) is-blue.

In Examples 3.1 and 3.2, the link between the chair and the
speaker is of the loosest kind: 

3.3)	le stizu po mi cu xunre
	The chair specific-to me is red.

3.4)	le stizu poi ke'a steci mi cu xunre
	The chair such-that (IT is-specific-to me) is-red.

In Examples 3.3 and 3.4, on the other hand, the chair is
more permanently connected with the speaker.  A plausible
(though not the only possible) contrast between Example
3.1 and Example 3.3 is that "pe mi" would be appropriate
for a chair the speaker is currently sitting on (whether or
not the speaker owned that chair), and "po mi" for a chair
owned by the speaker (whether or not he or she was
currently occupying it).  As a result, the relationship expressed
between two sumti by "po" is usually called "possession", although
it does not necessarily imply ownership, legal or otherwise.

3.5)	le birka po'e mi cu spofu
	The arm intrinsically-possessed-by me is-broken

3.6)	le botpi po mi cu spofu
	The bottle specific-to me is-broken

Examples 3.5 and 3.6 illustrate the contrast between
two types of possession called "intrinsic" and "extrinsic",
or sometimes "inalienable" and "alienable", respectively.
Something is intrinsically (or inalienably) possessed by someone
if the possession is part of the possessor, and cannot be
changed without changing the possessor.  In the case of
Example 3.5, people are usually taken to intrinsically possess
their arms: even if an arm is cut off, it remains the arm of
that person.  (If the arm is transplanted to another person,
however, it becomes intrinsically possessed by the new user,
though, so intrinsic possession is a matter of degree.)  By
contrast, the bottle of Example 3.6 can be given away,
or thrown away, or lost, or stolen, so it is possessed
extrinsically (alienably).  The exact line between intrinsic and
extrinsic possession is culturally dependent.  Note that
Example 3.5 can also be expressed without a relative clause:

3.7)	le birka be mi cu spofu
	The arm of-body me is broken

reflecting the fact that the gismu "birka" has an x2 place
representing the body to which the arm belongs.  Many, but
not all, cases of intrinsic possession can be thus covered without
using "po'e".

3.8)	le gerku po'u le mi pendo cu cinba mi
	The dog which-is my friend kisses me.

3.9)	le gerku poi du le mi pendo cu cinba mi
	The dog which = my friend kisses me.

The cmavo "po'u" does not represent possession at all, but
rather identity.  (Note that it means "poi du" and its form
was chosen to suggest the relationship.)

In Example 3.8, the use of "po'u" tells us that "le gerku" and
"le mi pendo" represent the same thing. Consider the contrast
between Example 3.8 and:

3.10)	le mi pendo po'u le gerku cu cinba mi
	My friend which-is the dog kisses me.

The facts of the case are the same, but the emphasis
is different; whatever is attached with "po'u" is considered
less important.  This principle applies to all the GOI cmavo,
and allows for the possibility of odd effects:

3.11)	le kabri pe le mi pendo cu cmalu
	The cup associated-with my friend is small.
	My cup is small

3.12)	le mi pendo pe le kabri cu cmalu
	My friend associated-with the cup is small.

Example 3.11 is useful in a context which is about my friend,
and states that his or her cup is small, whereas Example
3.12 is useful in a context that is primarily about a
certain cup, and makes a claim about "my friend of the cup",
as opposed to some other friend of mine.  Here the cup appears
to "possess" the person!  English can't even express this
relationship as a possessive expression -- "the cup's friend of
mine"? -- but Lojban has no trouble doing so.

The cmavo "ne" and "no'u" stand to "pe" and "po'u", respectively,
as "noi" does to "poi" -- they provide incidental information:

3.13)	le blabi gerku ne do cu batci mi
	The white dog, incidentally-associated-with you, bites me.
	The white dog, which is yours, bites me.

In Example 3.13, the white dog is already fully identified;
the fact that it is yours is merely incidental to the main
bridi claim.

Distinguishing between "po'u" and "no'u" can be a little tricky.
Consider a room with two men in it, Frank and Jim.  If you don't
know their names, I might say:

3.14)	le vi nanmu no'u la djim. cu terpemci
	The [short distance] man, incidentally-who-is Jim, is-a-poet.
	This man, Jim, is a poet.

Here I am saying that one of the men is a poet, and incidentally telling
you that he is Jim.  But if you do know the names, then

3.15)	le vi nanmu po'u la djim. cu terpemci
	The [short distance] man who-is Jim is-a-poet.
	This man, namely Jim, is a poet.

Now I am using the fact that the man I am speaking of is identical to Jim
as information for picking out which man I mean.

Finally, the elidable terminator for GOI cmavo is "ge'u" of
selma'o GEhU; it is almost never required.  (What about
the cmavo after which selma'o GOI is named?  It is discussed
elsewhere, as it is not semantically akin to the other kinds
of relative phrases, although the syntax is the same.)


4.  Multiple Relative Clauses:  "zi'e"

	zi'e	ZIhE		relative clause joiner

Sometimes it is necessary or useful to attach more than one
relative clause to a sumti.  This is made possible in Lojban
by the cmavo "zi'e" (of selma'o ZIhE), which is used to join one
or more relative clauses together into a single unit, thus making
them apply to the same sumti.  For example:

4.1)	le gerku poi blabi zi'e poi le nanmu batci ke'a cu klama
	The dog which( is-white) and such-that( the man bites IT) goes.
	The dog which is white and which the man bites is going.

The most usual translation of "zi'e" in English is "and", but
"zi'e" is not really a logical connective: unlike most of the true
logical connectives (which are explained elsewhere), it cannot be
converted into a logical connection between sentences.

It is perfectly correct to use "zi'e" to connect relative clauses
of different kinds:

4.2)	le gerku poi blabi zi'e noi
		 mi pendo ponse cu klama
	The dog which-is( white) and incidentally-such-that(
		my friend owns) goes.
	The dog which is white, and which my friend owns, is going.

In Example 4.2, the restrictive clause "poi blabi" specifies which
dog is referred to, but the incidental clause "noi mi pendo ponse"
is mere incidental information: the listener is supposed to already
have identified the dog from the "poi blabi".  Of course, the
meaning (though not necessarily the emphasis) is the same
if the incidental clause appears first.

It is also possible to connect relative phrases with "zi'e", or
a relative phrase with a relative clause:

4.3)	le botpi po mi zi'e poi blanu cu spofu
	The bottle specific-to me and which-is blue is-broken.
	My blue bottle is broken.

Note that if the colloquial translation of Example 4.3 were
"My bottle, which is blue, is broken", then "noi" rather than
"poi" would have been correct in the Lojban version, since that
version of the English implies that you do not need to know
the bottle is blue.  As written, Example 4.3 suggests that
I probably have more than one bottle, and the one in question
needs to be picked out as the blue one.

4.4)	mi zutse le stizu pe mi
		zi'e po do zi'e poi xunre
	I sit-in the chair associated-with me and
		specific-to you and which-is red.

Example 4.4 illustrates that more than two relative phrases
or clauses can be connected with "zi'e".  It almost defies colloquial
translation because of the very un-English contrast between
"pe mi", implying that the chair is temporarily connected with
me, and "po do", implying that the chair has a more permanent
association with you.  (Perhaps I am a guest in your house,
in which case the chair would naturally be your property.)


5.  Non-Veridical Relative Clauses:  "voi"

	voi	NOI	non-veridical relative clause introducer

There is another member of selma'o NOI which serves to
introduce a third kind of relative clause:  "voi".  Relative clauses
introduced by "voi" are restrictive, like those introduced by "poi".
However, there is a fundamental difference between "poi" and
"voi" relative clauses.  A "poi" relative clause is said to be
veridical, in the same sense that a description using "lo" or "loi"
is: it is essential to the interpretation that the bridi actually
be true.  For example:

5.1)	le gerku poi blabi cu klama
	The dog which is-white goes.

it must actually be true that the dog is white, or the
sentence constitutes a miscommunication.  If there is a white
dog and a brown dog, and the speaker uses "le gerku" to refer
to the brown dog, then the listener will not understand correctly.
However, 

5.2)	le gerku voi blabi cu gerku
	the dog which-I-describe-as white goes

puts the listener on notice that the dog in question may not
actually be white: only the speaker can say for sure.  In this
way, "voi" is like "le"; the speaker's intention determines the
meaning.

As a result, the following two sentences

5.3)	le nanmu cu ninmu
	That-which-I-describe-as a-man is-a-woman.

5.4)	ti voi nanmu cu ninmu
	This-thing which-I-describe-as a-man is-a-woman.

mean essentially the same thing (except that Example 5.5
involves pointing thanks to the use of "ti", whereas Example 5.4
doesn't), and neither one is self-contradictory: it is perfectly
all right to describe something as a man (although perhaps
confusing to the listener) even if it actually is a woman.

6.  Relative Clauses And Descriptors

-- 
John Cowan					cowan@ccil.org
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.