[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2


On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
* Friday, 2014-10-10 at 22:03 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:

> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> The need for opaque contexts was the main reason for "tu'a" to exist, so
> you could say "mi nitcu tu'a su'o mikce" without claiming that there's a
> doctor such that you need them.

I see. Just to check - there's no corresponding special behaviour for
{jai}, right?
    ro da jai broda
    -> ro da zo'u tu'a da broda
?

Right, "jai" raises an argument place out of a subordinate clause up to the main clause, while "tu'a" buries its argument into a subordinate clause. But "jai" deals with argument places, while "tu'a" deals with arguments.

 
Argh. Then yes, it looks like {tu'a} is in LAhE only syntactically, not
semantically, and must be handled separately.

For non-condensed forms (by "condensed form" I mean those forms that use a bridi operator in an argument position) "tu'a" behaves like the other LAhEs. It's the condensed forms that need special treatment, because "tu'a" introduces an additional level of subordinate clause. 

(So then tu'a needing opacity is no longer an argument that the rest of
LAhE should get it...)

Well...



But a concrete test question to narrow things down:

is {lo broda ku du lo broda} always true for all broda, as long as we
ignore any possible issues about unfilled places and/or variable vague
tenses etc?

I would most likely interpret it as true (emphasis on "interpret"). I don't think it's a syntactic rule though, but then again maybe that's just because it's so hard to abstract away from unfilled places, tenses, etc.  

Similarly, is
    lo bakni ku catlu gi'e damba
    <=> lo bakni ku catlu i je lo bakni ku damba
legitimate (under the same assumptions)?

I would say no, but again that may be only because those assumptions may never be actually fulfilled.

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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.