WikiDiscuss Help

Forums > WikiDiscuss > tags as connectives > tags as connectives

tags as connectives

posts: 1912

> >>"corresponding selbri" (that there always is one is
> >>suspect in many cases)
> 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.”

In that case, it is almost certain that not every tag has an
associated gismu.

> > {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}
> 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.

That depends on how you define the "corresponding predicate". If you
define it coherently (ri'a = fi'o rinka, ba = fi'o selbalvi}, then
the predicate that "corresponds" to {ba} is {selbalvi}. The
correspondence of {ba} with {balvi} is etymological, but it is not
the fi'o correspondence, {balvi} is not turned to {ba} with the
cmavo that converts selbri to tags, {selbalvi} is.

> 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).

For some strange reason {X iju Y} corresponds to {gu X gi Y}, instead
of {gu Y gi X}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now


Show posts: