WikiDiscuss

X

<<Can we find a predicate for any given tag?

Yes, but obviously not one picked arbitrarily.>>

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}?

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}. 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 am simply pointing out an irregularity

in the way tags work in Lojban.>>>>

But in the context of saying that every tag represents a {fi’o broda} phrase, though not always the one it appears to, for example

<<> The tag {fio se nenri} has a short form equivalent:

> {nei}.

> > 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.

<<The sumti tagged by {ne'i} is the container, the se nenri.

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).

<<> {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).

according to CLL, the cmavo of selma'o BAI are convenient

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)

<<> > It is surprizing for someone who expects Lojban to

> be regular.

> > You cant learn a single rule for the relationship

> between

> > { 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.

Ok, so for you it is not surprizing. For me it was,

when I tried to make sense of it and couldn't.>>

Now this part is clearly about the current language, since it is a complaint (or at least a puzzlement) not a new stipulation. It is not what one would expect, coming at it from one way and just what one would expect coming from some others. There are several analogies possible here and they point in different directions. I suspect that at different times in the process different ones were uppermost and so we got various results. 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). For PU, the tag order wins out—probably a more satisfying result in the short run.

<<> > {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},

(Actually as it turns out not really ambiguous because

{X iju Y} happens to coincide with {Y iseju X}. So either

way you understand "the other way around" is correct.)>>

In structure though not in result.

<<which fits in

> exactly with the rules for the other A connectives,

The other A connectives are symmetric, so either rule will

fit in exactly with them.>>

True, but the rule used is to keep order.

<<The most intuitive method would have been to make the

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. 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 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.