WikiDiscuss Help

Forums > WikiDiscuss > tags as connectives > tags as connectives

tags as connectives

posts: 1912


> That is, given the meaning of the tag, we can only use a predicate that means
> that same thing, pretty much. So the question is, given that we are in the
> general area of {broda} does the form of the tag affect the predicate form we
> can use — or, probably more accurately – does the form of the predicate
> affect the form of the tag. Specifically, for {se broda} could the tag be
> just {bo’a} or does it have to be {se bo’a}?

The form of the tag, in principle, is irrelevant to the form of the
corresponding fi'o predicate. In practice, most tags were chosen based
on a gismu and thus with a related form, but this was not done
systematically. BAIs do have an officially associated gismu. But not
all tags need have a related gismu, and some may be related to a gismu
that has a totally different form, such as {re'o}, which is {fi'o lamji}.
(Or maybe {fi'o se lamji}, but in this case it makes little difference.)

The forms of the tag and related selbri may have mnemonic value but it
is irrelevant for this analysis.

> Part of the problem is that I am unsure what language this paper is about.
> This piece is clearly not about CLL Lojban nor any clearly approved variant
> on it, since in that langauge the answer is clearly “It has to be {se bo’a},”
> whereas you allow it might be {bo’a}.

I don't know what you mean. In Lojban, we have different

ri'a = fi'o rinka
ne'i = fi'o se nenri
re'o = fi'o (se) lamji

> There are, of course (this is Lojban
> after all), exceptions to the rule above, motivated by convenience, I
> suppose, and I gather that your aim is to regularize them by having us learn
> for each tag what form of the underlying predicate underlies it, rather than
> just learning that some cases are anomolous. (In the end, I suppose it is
> going to be about the same amount of work, since the rule will still cover
> most cases.)

I don't have any such aim. Whatever method you use to learn the meanings
of the tags, once you know what the tag means, you know at least roughly
the underlying predicate. Once you know what {ri'a} means, you know that
it is {fi'o broda} where the x1 of broda is a cause, and once
you know what {ne'i} means, you know that it is {fi'o broda} where
the x1 of broda is a container. You can then argue whether {ne'i} is
closer to {fi'o selnenri} or to {fi'o vasru}, or something else, but it
will never occur to you to say it is {fi'o nenri}.

All that has nothing to do with the irregularity that I am discussing.
It is simply a fact that every tag can be written as {fi'o broda} for
some suitably chosen broda.

> <> So {ne'i} is {fi'o se nenri}.>>>>
> But that is flat against the rule, i.e., this is a exception made for
> convenence (and then not discussed or justified – not that the justification
> is not obvious).

An exception to what rule? There is no rule for the forms of tags.

> <> abbreviations of the corresponding fi'o tags, so at least
> in theory {bau} is fully equivalent to {fi'o bangu}.>>
> And match the predicate in ordering, etc. The claim is also in doubt, since
> there are many examples like {bau} where the {fi’o} requires glorking – or
> checking to see what the BAI (if there is one) says – but the BAI does not
> (cf. tanru and lujvo, I think)

I don't think {fi'o bangu} requires any more glorking than {bau}.
(Or {fi'o se bangu} than {se bau}, or {fi'o te bangu} than {te bau}.)

> The BAI case
> (courtesy of its underlying predicates) is a bit more complex:
> Predicate order {X rinka Y}
> Tag order (Y ri’a X}
> Adverb order {X i ri’a (la’e di’u) Y}
> Logical connective transition order: A+B => +A,B
> So, from the first part, what should the the afterthought connective be?
> Generally, the tag order wins this one over the adverbial and the predicative
> (and thus generates a potential confusion). {Y i ri’a bo X} But, for BAI,
> the the connective pattern dominates the tag in transition, giving {ri’a gi Y
> gi X} (the {iju}-{gu} pattern, with the potential problems it raises).

Actually, it's {ri'a gi X gi Y}, the opposite of the iju-gu pattern.

> For
> PU, the tag order wins out—probably a more satisfying result in the short
> run.

PU follows iju-gu: {X ibabo Y} = {ba gi X gi Y}

> <> tags take the corresponding x2 as the argument, so
> {pi'o X} for "using X" instead of {se pi'o X},
> {ri'a X} for "causing X", {seri'a X} for "caused by X",
> etc. I know why it wasn't done like that, but that's
> the source of most of the confusion. That's the way {pu}
> and {ba} work with respect to their mnemonic cognates,
> but not with respect to their fi'o-counterparts, of course.
> If fi'o had worked like that, then the mnemonic and fi'o
> counterparts would match for them too.>>
> I’m not sure why this is more intuitive – unless you mean “makes the stuff
> around the tag look more like the stuff around the predicate,” which it does.

Yes. If I'm not mistaken, prepostions in many natlangs are
related to verbs, and their object is the direct object of the

> Practically, though, I don’t see that it imroves things any: some gismu will
> probably give preference to 2nd place ({balvi, nenri}) others to 1st
> ({bangu}) and others split about even ({rinka} and the causals generally). I
> don’t think one way has a clear Zipfean advantage, so the heuristic gain of
> having tag and predicate match form for form is probably a deciding factor.

I wasn't thinking so much of Zipfean advantage as of positional
consistency: the x2 argument typically falls right after the selbri.

The problem with that approach is that only x1 and x2 of the selbri
are easily accessible. To get x3 we would need something like
{fi'o se te se broda}, so that the x3 is in second position.

> <<> I also suspect that
> > the set up for the two different scheme depend upon
> > the very different natures of the two sorts of tags
> > involved.
> I don't see how their natures are so different.
> {purci} is "x1 precedes x2 in time", {rinka} is
> "x1 precedes x2 in causal link". Similarly for
> {balvi} and {jalge} when x2 follows x1. The difference
> is that their corresponding tags ended up in different
> selma'o>>
> By the time structure is inherently different from the causal: it has the
> double order of before-after and past-present-future, as well as a variety of
> physico-mathematical properties that causation lacks. But it is the
> interplay of the A and the B series in time that put {balvi} in the tense
> selma’o.

What are the A and B series?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

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


Show posts: