* Wednesday, 2014-10-22 at 18:13 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > I don't know, the "TT-skimming" semantics seem to give useful results in
> > at least some cases.
>
> broda .i [jek tag] bo brode
> -> broda .i jek brode .i (je?) ga nai ge broda gi brode gi [tag] gi broda
> gi brode
Yes (ignoring the problems with repeating things).
> (I don't remember now if forethought tag-connective needs a "se" or not
> with respect to afterthought tag-connective.
Depends on whether the tag is a tense...
ba gi broda gi zajba == broda .i ba bo zajba
bai gi broda gi zajba == zajba .i bai bo broda
Which reminds me - which way should
broda .i ba je bai bo zajba
work, or should it be some mix? If a mix, how about with {joi}?
I pretty arbitrarily decided for tersmu that if there's a tense involved
in the tag, then the whole thing acts like a tense.
> ) So for half of the connectives (those with TT F rather than TT T), the tag
> is more or less meaningless. Those would be: jenai, naje, najenai, najanai,
> jonai, naju, sejunai, and the contradiction one that lojban doesn't have.
Yes. It would also mean that e.g. {broda na gi'a ba bo brode} is not the
same as {na broda .ja ba bo brode}, which could be surprising.
> I think it might also make sense to analyse tag-connectives as if they were
> ordinary tags on the second connectand, with the first connectand acting as
> their complement, so:
>
> broda .i [jek tag] bo brode
> -> broda .i [jek] brode [(se} tag] lo nu broda
But if broda doesn't occur, what is {lo nu broda} referring to here?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature