poi'i

poi'i NU x1 is such that poi'i abstraction is true; x1 binds ke'a within the abstraction.

Replaces kai'i.

But see SE ka for a nicer but non-baseline-conformant alternative.

From Lojban List:

---

>>> John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> 08/22/01 05:10pm >>>

And Rosta wrote:

...

>> poi'i NU x1 is such that poi'i abstraction is true; x1 binds

>> ke'a within the abstraction.

>

>Can you provide a concrete example of such an abstraction, and an

>x1 that would make it true? I don't understand this.

It's a utility.

1. It allows de facto prenexes without need for goi:

mi viska la djan

= la djan goi ko'a zo'u mi viska ko'a

= la djan poi'i mi viska ke'a

2. It allows for reflexives:

mi poi'i ke'a viska ke'a

"I see myself"

mi poi'i ke'a jinvi tu'o du'u ke'a melbi

"I believe myself to be beautiful"

3. It allows sumti tail formation in cases that can otherwise

be difficult to handle:

le poi'i la djan jinvi tu'o du'u ke'a melbi

"certain ones who John believes to be beautiful"

le poi'i ke'a viska ke'a

"certain ones who see themselves"

The basic idea is a NOI converted into a NU.

--And.

---

I had trouble understanding at first because I missed that its

selma'o is NU and not NOI. Maybe it should use a different cmavo

than ke'a so you don't confuse those used to poi? (zo ke'ai zo'o)

(For the record I don't like or advocate this cmavo) --mi'e .djorden.

• Such ambiguities already arise with NOI within NOI, and the official solution to that problem, viz xi-subscripting, could be used here, without having to create yet another cmavo. Indeed, when ce'u was created I was opposed to it, advocating the use of ke'a instead, and I hold to that view still. --And Rosta

• • I agree that ke'a/ce'u are essentially the same thing. I used ke'u with ka before ce'u was created. I like the flexibility that poi'i affords, but I prefer seka for that meaning. --xorxes
    • Ummh, can someone explain to me what similarities there are between {ke'a}, a restricted anaphora, and {ce'u} a bound variable in abstractions? pycyn

• • • • One way to see the similarity is to replace {poi} with {pe sekai le ka} (or {noi} with {ne sekai le ka}), so for example {le broda poi ke'a brode} is {le broda pe sekai le ka ce'u brode}. In both cases, relative-clause = NOI subsentence /KUhO/, tanru-unit = NU subsentence /KEI/, the respective KOhA keeps a slot in the subsentence open. One important difference is that multiple uses of {ke'a} collapse to a single slot, while multiple uses of ce'u correspond to different slots.
      • Ahah! When spun out in certain contexts they give the same resultant claim, not that they are conceptually at all similar. Sorta like {ka} and {du'u}, without the grammatical similarities.

• • I agree. I think I must have proposed poi'i because ka has no x2 (and IMO nor should it). But that leaves se ka meaningless, and a reasonable interpretation it to take se ka as forcing a predicate that is is a verion of ka with an x2. Okay, then -- see jbocre: SE + x2-less brivla. --And Rosta

Is there any circumstance in which {poi'i} can't be replaced by {du DA poi} (or {du lo du poi}), being only one or two syllables longer and non-experimental?

{mi du da poi ke'a viska ke'a}

"I am one who sees themself"

{le du be da poi ke'a viska ke'a}

"Certain ones which equal something which sees itself"

mi'e MartinBays aten.

• Yes, {poi'i} is approximately {du (be) da poi}, therefrom its form, but it doesn't use up a variable. Many cmavo can be paraphrased in terms of other cmavo, but it is still convenient to have the compact forms. In your example, a difference would appear if you were to write the sumti after the selbri: Compare {poi'i ke'a broda kei fa ro de} with {du su'o da poi ke'a broda ku'o fa ro de}. In the second case, ro de is within the scope of su'o da. ({poi'i} is probably fully equivalent to {du (be) tu'o da poi}.) --xorxes