Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400c:c02::22a as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400c:c02::22a;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <519C13CF.1090406@gmx.de>
References: <519C13CF.1090406@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 23:08:59 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2f8OB7KMWbJB8g4=P=xqzP__RmpFxncZbF7XibpoXPbXg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Tags and bridi operators
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3a90b282758204dd450c61
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

--047d7b3a90b282758204dd450c61
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:39 PM, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:

> We know that na(ku), quantifiers, connectives and tenses are bridi
> operators, but what about non-tense tags? Some clearly are bridi operators,
> for instance the causals:
>

In general, tags for which the rest of the bridi is an argument of the
tag's underlying selbri would be bridi operators. Those are also the
easiest tags to come up with a clean definition for. Maybe all tags have to
be defined that way.


> Either we make every tag, no matter what selma'o it belongs to, a bridi
> operator, or we pick some that are operators and some that aren't depending
> on what is the most useful / easiest to use. The problem with the second
> option is that it is a bit annoying to have to memorize which tags are and
> which aren't bridi operators. On the other hand, the problem with the first
> option is that it would actually invalidate a lot of usage! For example,
> from The Little Prince:
>
>      (4) do pu djuno noda fi'o fuzme mi
>
> The intended meaning is (more or less) "It's my fault that you didn't
> know." However, if {fi'o fuzme} is treated like any other tag, then the
> scope is wrong and the sentence suddenly means "In the past, there was no
> thing such that: you know it because of me", which is backwards from the
> intended meaning.
>

Yes, it should have been "fi'o fuzme mi do pu djuno no da". It's a very
common mistake with causals. For some reason we always tend to give them
wide scope, even when used at the end of the sentence. Very common with "na
...  ki'u ..." for instance.


> This is sad news. Should we say {tai} (or even {ja'e}) is not a bridi
> operator and thus save the construction (and usage) or do we need to update
> our usage? Both solutions have their pros and cons, but in the long run,
> consistency seems more important.
>
> I'd be particularly interested in xorxes' opinion.
>

I guess it should be "ja'e ... tai ..." rather than "tai ... ja'e ...".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--047d7b3a90b282758204dd450c61
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail=
_quote">On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:39 PM, selpa&#39;i <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;=
<a href=3D"mailto:seladwa@gmx.de" target=3D"_blank">seladwa@gmx.de</a>&gt;<=
/span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">We know that na(ku), quantifiers, connective=
s and tenses are bridi operators, but what about non-tense tags? Some clear=
ly are bridi operators, for instance the causals:<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div style>In general, tags for which the rest =
of the bridi is an argument of the tag&#39;s underlying selbri would be bri=
di operators. Those are also the easiest tags to come up with a clean defin=
ition for. Maybe all tags have to be defined that way.</div>
<div><br></div><div>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"mar=
gin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Either we make every tag, no matter what selma&#39;o it belongs to, a bridi=
 operator, or we pick some that are operators and some that aren&#39;t depe=
nding on what is the most useful / easiest to use. The problem with the sec=
ond option is that it is a bit annoying to have to memorize which tags are =
and which aren&#39;t bridi operators. On the other hand, the problem with t=
he first option is that it would actually invalidate a lot of usage! For ex=
ample, from The Little Prince:<br>

<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0(4) do pu djuno noda fi&#39;o fuzme mi<br>
<br>
The intended meaning is (more or less) &quot;It&#39;s my fault that you did=
n&#39;t know.&quot; However, if {fi&#39;o fuzme} is treated like any other =
tag, then the scope is wrong and the sentence suddenly means &quot;In the p=
ast, there was no thing such that: you know it because of me&quot;, which i=
s backwards from the intended meaning.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div style>Yes, it should have been &quot;fi=
9;o fuzme mi do pu djuno no da&quot;. It&#39;s a very common mistake with c=
ausals. For some reason we always tend to give them wide scope, even when u=
sed at the end of the sentence. Very common with &quot;na ... =A0ki&#39;u .=
..&quot; for instance.</div>
<div style>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0=
 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
This is sad news. Should we say {tai} (or even {ja&#39;e}) is not a bridi o=
perator and thus save the construction (and usage) or do we need to update =
our usage? Both solutions have their pros and cons, but in the long run, co=
nsistency seems more important.<br>

<br>
I&#39;d be particularly interested in xorxes&#39; opinion.<br></blockquote>=
<div><br></div><div style>I guess it should be &quot;ja&#39;e ... tai ...&q=
uot; rather than &quot;tai ... ja&#39;e ...&quot;.</div><div style><br>
</div><div style>mu&#39;o mi&#39;e xorxes=A0</div></div></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3De=
n">http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;<br />

--047d7b3a90b282758204dd450c61--