Posted by pycynon Mon 24 of Nov., 2003 00:21 GMT
posts: 2388

x

>pc:

>>"corresponding selbri" (that there always is one is

>>suspect in many cases)

>

>How can there not be one? We have two things that get connected,

>so we can always define a new selbri 'brodrtaga' such that it

>represents that relationship between the two things that the tag connects, >i.e. such that {lo nu bu'a cu brodrtaga lo nu bu'e} means {bu'a i bo

>bu'e}.

pc:

Sure, we can always fadge up a predicate, but that makes tags uninteresting – and a little suspect. What I meant was “natural predicate,” “existing predicate.” Maybe even “gismu.”

>> The order for the causal/inferential

>> connectives changed several times in printed Loglan text, mainly as

>>the translation of the connectives moved between "because" (which has a

>>certain naturalness from "cause") and "hence/therefore/thus" which seemed >>to fit the order better.

>>

>> The argument always came back to the order of the underlying

>> predicate, though I don't remember what it was most recently in

>>Loglan. Of course, the predicates do not keep the corresponding orders

>>completely, so that argument may collapse a bit — and some are personal >>rather than formal, I seem to recall.

>The problem is not so much the underlying predicate, that is just

>a convenient way to explain it. The problem is that:

>

> {X i ba bo Y} corresponds to {ba gi Y gi X}

>

>whereas

>

> {X i ri'a bo Y} corresponds to {ri'a gi X gi Y}

>

>So even if we don't mention any underlying predicates, there

>is a discrepancy.

pc:
I suspect that the discrepancy is connected with the predicates involved: with the typical PU, the following sumti is actually the second argument of the corresponding predicate, with BAI it is the first. The afterthought-connective use of the tags, since it clearly comes between the two, adopts the order of the predicate, no longer following the tag association of the other uses. Suppose {anai} were associated with “follows from”: then {X ijanai Y} would correspond to {ganai Y gi X} (though the principles involved are somewhat different).

## tags as connectives

x

>pc:

>>"corresponding selbri" (that there always is one is

>>suspect in many cases)

>

>How can there not be one? We have two things that get connected,

>so we can always define a new selbri 'brodrtaga' such that it

>represents that relationship between the two things that the tag connects, >i.e. such that {lo nu bu'a cu brodrtaga lo nu bu'e} means {bu'a i bo

>bu'e}.

pc:

Sure, we can always fadge up a predicate, but that makes tags uninteresting – and a little suspect. What I meant was “natural predicate,” “existing predicate.” Maybe even “gismu.”

>> The order for the causal/inferential

>> connectives changed several times in printed Loglan text, mainly as

>>the translation of the connectives moved between "because" (which has a

>>certain naturalness from "cause") and "hence/therefore/thus" which seemed >>to fit the order better.

>>

>> The argument always came back to the order of the underlying

>> predicate, though I don't remember what it was most recently in

>>Loglan. Of course, the predicates do not keep the corresponding orders

>>completely, so that argument may collapse a bit — and some are personal >>rather than formal, I seem to recall.

>The problem is not so much the underlying predicate, that is just

>a convenient way to explain it. The problem is that:

>

> {X i ba bo Y} corresponds to {ba gi Y gi X}

>

>whereas

>

> {X i ri'a bo Y} corresponds to {ri'a gi X gi Y}

>

>So even if we don't mention any underlying predicates, there

>is a discrepancy.

pc:

I suspect that the discrepancy is connected with the predicates involved: with the typical PU, the following sumti is actually the second argument of the corresponding predicate, with BAI it is the first. The afterthought-connective use of the tags, since it clearly comes between the two, adopts the order of the predicate, no longer following the tag association of the other uses. Suppose {anai} were associated with “follows from”: then {X ijanai Y} would correspond to {ganai Y gi X} (though the principles involved are somewhat different).

Reads: 1693