Re: TECH: Linguistics and x1/Subject ellipsis

[jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU]

Lojbab writes:
> I realize that jimc has proposed an analysis of omitted places involving
> "auto-replication", which I have never really understood....

John Cowan has been saying something very similar in terms of lambda
calculus and propositional functions.  I suppose this is the language
by which logicians think of such matters, and it certainly has a
solid ring to it: LAMBDA CALCULUS :-)  Anyway:

Consider a restrictive subordinate clause:

        lo mlatu poi  (ke'a) xekri
        a  cat   r.c. {(it) is black}

What's black, and how do you know?  In the vacant x1 (after conversion)
of the clause, a pronoun ke'a is assumed present according to rules,
and this pronoun is bound to "lo mlatu".  The effect is that proposed
referents of "lo mlatu" are replicated into the clause, and because
it's restrictive, only the ones for which the clause is true are
retained.  That's what replication means.  In terms of propositional
functions, {(it) is black} is a function which does not contain its own
sumti; its argument is bound to another sumti, "lo mlatu".

Points important to me:
        a.  The occupant of this vacant place is an invisible pronoun.
        b.  Presence of this pronoun is required by rules (except for
            exceptions...)
        c.  The binding target of the pronoun is specified by rules.

Now I apply the same concept to abstractions, stealing the same pronoun.
I may not be totally up to date on the latest place structure proposal;
I am assuming that binxo x2 expects a property abstraction for what x1
becomes.

        le mlatu binxo   lo ka (ke'a) blabi
        the cat  becomes {     (it) is white }

Again, identically with the subordinate clause, I want the vacant x1
place of the abstraction to be occupied by an invisible ke'a which is
bound to "le mlatu".  But since this is an abstraction, not a subordinate
clause, the binding target is binxo x1.

Now I want all this to happen because of rules -- I don't want users to
have to glork this by mental telepathy.  Clauses have only one possible
binding arrangement whereas abstractions are more complicated.
Nonetheless I allege that relatively simple rules will be sufficient.
Most cases are covered by this rule: bind the abstraction's ke'a to the
previous place (before conversion) of the containing bridi.  This rule
would work even better if place definitions were adjusted
correspondingly.

Such a rule for "replicating" (or binding) neighboring sumti into an
abstraction would greatly ease our semantic problems in interpreting
abstractions; would allow clear and non-vague interpretations of many
tanru; and would allow definite meanings to be ascribed to lujvo based
on those tanru.

                -- jimc