History: tags as connectives

Source of version: 2 (current)

__tags__ are the members of selma'o BAI, CAhA, CUhE, KI, ZI, PU, VA, FAhA, ZEhA, VEhA, VIhA, TAhE and ZAhO, {number ROI} compounds, and certain combinations of all these, possibly modified by members of selma'o NAhE, SE, MOhI, FEhE and NAI. See ((Internal grammar of tags)) for details. Additionally, tags can be created from selbri as {FIhO selbri /FEhU/}.

__tags__ express binary relationships. As sumti tcita, they relate a sumti to the rest of the relationship of which the tagged sumti is a term, as selbri tcita they relate a glorked sumti to the rest of the relationship. They can also be used as connectives, in which case they relate one connectand to the other.

In principle, every tag should be expressible as ''fi'o broda'' for some suitable broda. The x1 of broda is the first argument of the tag, which corresponds to the sumti in sumti tcita, and to the glorked sumti in selbri tcita. For example, the tag {ki'u}, or {fi'o krinu}, tags a sumti that corresponds to the x1 of krinu. Tha tag {ba}, or {fi'o selbalvi}, tags a sumti that corresponds to the x1 of selbalvi.

        ki'ugi broda gi brode
        ki'u lo nu broda cu brode
        lo nu broda cu krinu lo nu brode
        ''because it brodas, it brodes''

        bagi broda gi brode
        ba lo nu broda cu brode
        lo nu broda cu selbalvi lo nu brode
        ''after it brodas, it brodes''

        ni'agi broda gi brode
        ni'a lo nu broda cu brode
        lo nu broda cu selni'a lo nu brode
        ''under where it brodas, it brodes''

        ka'egi broda gi brode
        ka'e lo nu broda cu brode
        lo nu broda cu selcu'i lo nu brode
        ''if it brodas, it could brode''

So far so good. Now what happens if we want to use the tag as an afterthought connective? Unfortunately, there is no uniform rule:

        ki'ugi broda gi brode
        brode iki'ubo broda

        bagi broda gi brode
        broda ibabo brode

With BAIs, the first argument follows the afterthought tag, the second argument comes first. With PUs, it is the other way around.

It should be noticed that PUs work like the asymmetrical logical connectives:

        gu broda gi brode
        broda iju brode

However, the more intuitive rule, it seems to me, is the one followed by BAIs. Indeed, I would prefer {gu broda gi brode} to mean {brode iju broda}.

Nothing is said in CLL (I think) about other tags as afterthought connectives, but presumably FAhAs at least would behave like PUs:

        ni'agi broda gi brode
        broda ini'abo brode
        ''under where it brodas, it brodes''

Intuitively I would read the second one the other way around.

mi'e ((xorxes))

--------------------------

(comments?)
History: tags as connectives

Source of version: 2 (current)

Search Lojban Resources
