WikiDiscuss Help

Forums > WikiDiscuss > tags as connectives > tags as connectives

tags as connectives

posts: 2388

> > 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?
> Im sorry, I dont understand the question.

Can we arbitrarily pick a predicate and say it
corresponds to a tag, even if there are no visible
similarities? This makes the notion that there is a
correspondence totally trivial and uninteresting. I
can always — as you note — make something up. So why
continue with this project? The claim you want to make
is pointless and the claim you appear to make is
> It is the case that for any given predicate, we can
> a tag corresponding to each of its arguments. So for
> from {klama} we can create 5 tags: {fio klama}, {fio
se klama},
> {fio te klama}, {fio ve klama} and {fio xe klama}
This is, of course, built into the definition of

> For a number of predicates, those tags have short
forms, so for
> example the tag {ve kaa} is the short form of the
tag {fio ve klama}.
> The tag {fio se nenri} has a short form equivalent:
> The tag {fio nenri} does not have a short form. In
other words,
> in {broda fio nenri koa}, you cant replace {fio
nenri} with
> a short tag and get the same meaning.

But this is just clearly wrong if the relation is to
the predicates in {fio} phrases. The connection of
{nei} is obviously with {nenri}, not {se nenri} --
unless the connection is arbitrary. In the latter
case, the whole {fio} discussion is irrelevant, the
connection is merely mnemonic and not reducible to
some other relation.
> {bau} as sumti tcita tags a sumti which would be the
x1 of {bangu},
> i.e. the language. {bau} is {fio bangu}.

Not in any obvious sense. {fio bangu} apparently
hooks on a reference to a language, without any
specification of how that is to be connected to the
rest of the sentence, {bau} is quite precise (if not
explicit) about what the connection is: the language
mentioned is the language in which some vocal activity
cited in the sentence is carried out (i.e. that
activity is te bangu).

> I dont want to do anything with the fio-selbri. I
just used it
> to point out something which can be pointed out just
as well without
> recourse to the fio-selbri, namely that some tags
switch the order
> of their arguments in forethought and others dont.

Yes, because some tags point to different kinds of
structures than others. I suspect that switch the
order of their arguments assumes that the same
structures are involved, whereas the fact that there
are different classes involves suggest that the
structures are also diffeeent in some interesting way.

> > think it is better just to recognize that tense PU
behaves differently from
> > BAI, which is hardly surprising.
> It is surprizing for someone who expects Lojban to
be regular.
> You cant learn a single rule for the relationship
> { gi ... gi ...} and {... i bo ...}. You need to >
learn different rules for different tags.

But the diferent tags belong to different categories,
so one expects that they behave differently. Look at
the distribution differences for the various regular
connectives — which have different sources. To be
sure, I would like to get rid of these differences --
maybe even with tag connectives — but I am not
surprised that the differences exist.
> > > For some strange reason {X iju Y} corresponds to
{gu X gi Y}, instead
> > of {gu Y gi X}.
> pc:
> > On the other hand, how else would we do {gu}? Even
if we swithced {gu} and
> > {se gu}(?!) there would still be the same
> How so?
> {gu X gi Y} would correspond to {Y iju X}
> {segu X gi Y} would correspond to {Y iseju X}.
> Currently it is the other way around.
Currently (since the other way around is ambiguous)
{gu X gi Y} corresponds to {X iju Y} and
{segu X gi Y} corresponds to {X segu Y}, which fits in
exactly with the rules for the other A connectives,
under the usual assumption that postposed {na} and
preposed {nai} belong with the sentence not, strictly,
the connective. That assumption — which is current
Lojban — is not a necessary one; the alternative has
been tried but resulted in even more confusion than
the present one does. The temptation to read X in
{ganai X gi Y} as the antecedent far outweighed the
symmetry of having this mean the same as {X anai Y}.
The option of changing orders does not arise in either
of these schemes. I expect that similar problems would
arise from mucking about with {ba} or {ria} to fit
them into one mold or the other. I also suspect that
the set up for the two different scheme depend upon
the very different natures of the two sorts of tags


Show posts: