WikiDiscuss Help

Forums > WikiDiscuss > tags as connectives > tags as connectives

tags as connectives

posts: 2388




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. >>



But {se balvi} is just {purci}, so perhaps we should exchange {ba} and {pu}, a suggestion that has been made – and rejected – before; it’s very Irish so not an irrational one. But it fails the “preserve past text” stricture. I think it is better just to recognize that tense PU behaves differently from BAI, which is hardly surprising.


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

of {gu Y gi X}.



Sure? This is too clearly wrong for even CLL to have done, but there it

is on p329. How in the Hell did it happen? The text even notes that

it is odd. Apparently, the fact that {u} is not symmetric escaped

notice — or it was thought that only asymmetries involving negation had to

be treated peculiarly. However, it would give some analogy for the

peculiarities of PU relative to their corresponding predicates.>>

On the other hand, how else would we do {gu}? Even if we swithced {gu} and {se gu}(?!) there would still be the same separation. The rule for A to GA seems to be to shift the pure form, leaving the negations attached as before, but preferring {nai} to {na} where possible (and front to center when relevant) but keeping the order of components the seame. The rules for tags seem to be less simple, but mainly because we are talking about a category “tag” which encompasses a number of items otherwise rather diverse.


Show posts: