WikiDiscuss

---

> <<> 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.>>
>
> In the pattern you gave (<<{X i ri'a bo Y} corresponds to {ri'a gi X gi
> Y}>>), the cause element remains in second place and the effect in first when
> the causal connective is fronted, analogous to the unchanged positions in
> {u}. CLL has it the opposite way(i.e. {ri’a gi X gi Y}, 8.2 v. 8.1, p.199),
> but I was dealing with your idea.

No, I'm perfectly happy with the way CLL does {ri'a}.
I think {ri'a gi X gi Y} = {Y iri'abo X} is the Right Thing,
and that it would have been better if {gu} had been defined
so that {gu X gi Y} was {Y iju X}.

> <<> 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}>>
>
> Errh, you said <<{X i ba bo Y} corresponds to {ba gi Y gi X}>>.

Where did I say that? If it did, there wouldn't be a discrepancy.

> Your current
> version is that of CLL. Following you, I reversed the orders. The problem
> remains, though the exemplars shift.

If I could reverse the order of something, I wouldn't reverse
the order of everything, that would be silly! Of course the problem
would remain. The problem is not with one particular order but rather
with the inconsistency that one rule is used for some tags and the
opposite rule for other tags.

> Actually, the more interesting problem
> is the one CLL covers with “As a result” at the bottom of p248, where {X ba
> Y} is shifted to {Y iba X}. Shifting all that back, it turns out the two
> cases are exactly parallel: effect ri’a cause => effect iri’abo cause =>
> ri’a gi cause gi effect, and event ba axis => axis ibabo event => ba gi axis
> gi event, with only the one anomaly of axis ibabo event rather than event
> ibabo axis, wich is the result of some unmentioned – but referred to –
> factor.

Yes, that's what I say on the wiki page. {ba} and {ri'a} are
parallel in everything except for {ibabo}/{iri'abo}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

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