Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 03:42:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: la gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <b1b58004-490e-4940-8bbc-56e5e5f01ba6@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2f8OB7KMWbJB8g4=P=xqzP__RmpFxncZbF7XibpoXPbXg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <519C13CF.1090406@gmx.de>
 <CAO7tK2f8OB7KMWbJB8g4=P=xqzP__RmpFxncZbF7XibpoXPbXg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Tags and bridi operators
MIME-Version: 1.0
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="----=_Part_507_11518811.1369219367284"
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_507_11518811.1369219367284
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1


On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 6:08:59 AM UTC+4, xorxes wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:39 PM, selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de <javascript:>>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".
>

This is something absolutely counterintuitive. This is one of the first 
features to be clearly documented in BPFK sections of the wiki.


> 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.


------=_Part_507_11518811.1369219367284
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<br><br>On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 6:08:59 AM UTC+4, xorxes wrote:<blockquo=
te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left:=
 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div><br><br><div =
class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:39 PM, selpa'i <span dir=3D=
"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"javascript:" target=3D"_blank" gdf-obfuscated-mailto=
=3D"t2zs__TRDQ8J">sel...@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>In general, tags for which the rest of the=
 bridi is an argument of the tag's underlying selbri would be bridi operato=
rs. Those are also the easiest tags to come up with a clean definition for.=
 Maybe all tags have to be defined that way.</div>
<div><br></div><div>&nbsp;</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"=
margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Either we make every tag, no matter what selma'o it belongs to, a bridi ope=
rator, 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 opti=
on is that it is a bit annoying to have to memorize which tags are and whic=
h aren't bridi operators. On the other hand, the problem with the first opt=
ion is that it would actually invalidate a lot of usage! For example, from =
The Little Prince:<br>

<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;(4) do pu djuno noda fi'o fuzme mi<br>
<br>
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 suc=
h that: you know it because of me", which is backwards from the intended me=
aning.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, it should have been "fi'o fuzme mi do=
 pu djuno no da".</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>T=
his is something absolutely counterintuitive. This is one of the first feat=
ures to be clearly documented in BPFK sections of the wiki.</div><div><br><=
/div><div><br></div><div>&nbsp;</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" styl=
e=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left:=
 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div> It's a very c=
ommon mistake with causals. For some reason we always tend to give them wid=
e scope, even when used at the end of the sentence. Very common with "na ..=
. &nbsp;ki'u ..." for instance.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8=
ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
This is sad news. Should we say {tai} (or even {ja'e}) is not a bridi opera=
tor 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, consis=
tency seems more important.<br>

<br>
I'd be particularly interested in xorxes' opinion.<br></blockquote><div><br=
></div><div>I guess it should be "ja'e ... tai ..." rather than "tai ... ja=
'e ...".</div><div><br>
</div><div>mu'o mi'e xorxes&nbsp;</div></div></div></div>
</blockquote>

<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 />

------=_Part_507_11518811.1369219367284--