WikiDiscuss Help

Forums > WikiDiscuss > tags as connectives > tags as connectives

tags as connectives


posts: 1912

 
> pc:
> Your claim is getting stranger and stranger. If "corresponding" is to have a
> meaning it needs to be fixed.

By "corresponding predicate", I always meant a predicate broda such
that {fi'o broda} is equivalent to the tag in question.

> Is it the case that we can just take a
> predicate and declare that some tag corresponds to some permutation of it,
> without any evidence in the tag?

I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.

It is the case that for any given predicate, we can create
a tag corresponding to each of its arguments. So for example
from {klama} we can create 5 tags: {fi'o klama}, {fi'o se klama},
{fi'o te klama}, {fi'o ve klama} and {fi'o xe klama}.

For a number of predicates, those tags have short forms, so for
example the tag {ve ka'a} is the short form of the tag {fi'o ve klama}.

The tag {fi'o se nenri} has a short form equivalent: {ne'i}.
The tag {fi'o nenri} does not have a short form. In other words,
in {broda fi'o nenri ko'a}, you can't replace {fi'o nenri} with
a short tag and get the same meaning.

> This again makes the whole notion suspect
> and uninteresting. Notice, for example, that {balvi} explains an apparent
> anomaly, {se balvi} does not. (Is {seba} even legit?)

{seba} in ungrammatical. If {fi'o balvi} has an equivalent short form,
it is {pu}. In other words, the closest thing we have to
{mi klama fi'o balvi lo nu mi citka} is {mi klama pu lo nu mi citka}.
"I go, with my eating in the future."

> On the other hand, the connection between predicate and tag is pretty loose:
> {bau} is "in a language" not "is a language."

{bau} as sumti tcita tags a sumti which would be the x1 of {bangu},
i.e. the language. {bau} is {fi'o bangu}.

>Here the outside sentence is
> not the second argument but the third (and this is true of {sebau} as well).

Right. {fi'o} only selects one of the arguments from its selbri.
The other one has to be glorked.

> But then {bau} is a bit hard to imagine as a connective (I expect an obvious
> example here, of course.) So maybe insisting on more than a mnemonic
> connection is absurd, but you seem to want to do it at all cost.

I don't want to do anything with the fi'o-selbri. I just used it
to point out something which can be pointed out just as well without
recourse to the fi'o-selbri, namely that some tags switch the order
of their arguments in forethought and others don't.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/

 


Show posts: