WikiDiscuss Help

Forums > WikiDiscuss > tags as connectives > tags as connectives

tags as connectives


posts: 1

I can't keep track of who is saying what in response to what.

--And.

--- Original Message ---
From: John E Clifford
To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 3:34 AM
Subject: WikiDiscuss Re: tags as connectives

 
>
>
> <>
> corresponding fi'o predicate.>>
>
>
>
> Not what CLL says: page 195-6
>
>
>
> <>
> 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.>>
>
>
>
> As I said, if you are going to insist on your (not CLL's) version of
{fi'o}. There are -this being Lojban - exceptions to the rule, but that
does not mean that the rule is not there.
>
>
>
> <<> 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
>
> cases:
>
>
>
> 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}.>>
>
>
>
> Which is why it is is an irregular formation.
>
>
>
>
>
> <<> <>
> > 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.>>
>
>
>
> It sure looks like one - or rather a set of examples and wording that
indicates that they are the paradigm.
>
>
>
>
>
> <<> <>
> > 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}.)>>
>
>
>
> Well, we disagree. I think it is merely that the range of options is very
small for {bangu} - although {fi'o te bangu} is pretty obscure - but then so
is {tebau}.
>
>
>
>
>
> <<> 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.
>
> <<> 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}>>. Your
current version is that of CLL. Following you, I reversed the orders. The
problem remains, though the exemplars shift. 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.
>
>
>
> <<> <>
> > 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
>
> verb.>>
>
>
>
> Some are, some aren't and whether it is the direct object or the indirect
or the subject varies from case to case. It is not a a principle that I
would appeal to, since it does not hold to any very marked extent in any
language we are likely to be familiar with (Chinese excepted, as usual).
>
>
>
> <<> 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 am inclined to think that is good enough to drop the idea, even though
the third and later places are rarely used - except for a few preds.
>
> <>
> Past-Present-Future and Before-After, both temporal and very similar at an
abstract level but not mutually definable.
>
>
>
>

 


Show posts: