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?)