Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2

On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 12:00 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

* Friday, 2014-11-07 at 17:58 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:

> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > * Wednesday, 2014-11-05 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> > > I was speculating on what the second proposition would be when a logical
> > > connective is involved. Nothing really makes much sense though.
> > Is it so bad for it to be {brode}, completing the symmetry with the
> > tense case?
> It's unintuitive for me, it doesn't really fit the surface form.

I see what you mean. But CLL is clear that brode is claimed, so I'll go
with that.

So following CLL, without logical connectives "broda .i [tag] bo brode" makes three independent claims:

(1) broda

(2) brode

(3) lo nu broda cu xo'i [tag] (for tense tags)

lo nu brode cu xo'i [tag] (for non-tense tags)

CLL analyzes the relatively easy cases (causals) where the tag-claim presupposes the subordinate claims in any case, but this may be problematic for other tags such as "se ba'i" or "se cau", where the negation of one of the subordinate claims would have to be presupposed. So for example:

(a) mi na klama lo zarci .i ba'i bo mi stali lo zdani

I don't go to the market. Instead, I stay home.

(a1) mi na klama lo zarci

(a2) mi stali lo zdani

(a3) lo nu mi stali lo zdani cu basti (lo nu mi (ja'a!) klama lo zarci)

That works fine, because the change from "na" to "ja'a" is not part of anything explicit in (3). But what if we wanted to say "mi stali lo zdani" first. Do we say:

(b) mi stali lo zdani .i se ba'i bo mi klama lo zarci

(b1) mi stali lo zdani

(b2) mi klama lo zarci (?!)

(b3) lo nu mi klama lo zarci cu se basti (lo nu mi stali lo zdani)

or do we say:

(c1) mi stali lo zdani

(c2) mi na klama lo zarci

(c3) lo nu mi na klama lo zarci cu se basti (lo nu mi stali lo zdani) (?!)

Neither (b) nor (c) seems to work well with (1), (2), (3), so we either have to discard (2), amend (3) somehow. or dictate that tags like "se ba'i" don't make sense as bridi connectives. CLL says that tags like "bau" don't make much sense, which is reasonable because a bridi doesn't really describe a language, but if "se ba'i" were not to make sense it would be for a very different reason.

In any case, all of that applies to ".i [tag] bo". ".i [jek tag] bo" is related, but has to be analyzed separately.

"broda .i brode" makes two independent claims.

"broda .i [jek] brode" makes one claim.

"brode .i [tag] bo brode" makes three independent claims according to CLL (I would prefer it rather made two.)

How many independent claims does "broda .i [jek tag] bo brode" make, and what is it or what are they?

I'd like it to make just one claim, the jek-logical connection between (1) and (3) above. CLL seems to say that it makes two independent claims: "broda .i [jek] brode" and (3). But this doesn't work very well when "jek" is anything other than "je".

> > > > ca ro nu mi xagji kei mi klama lo zarci .e ba bo lo zdani
> > > > -> ca ro nu mi xagji kei da poi nu mi klama lo zarci zo'u ge da
> > > > fasnu gi ba da mi klama lo zdani
> > >
> > > ca ro nu mi xagji kei ge ko'a goi lo nu mi klama lo zarci cu fasnu gi ba
> > > ko'a mi klama lo zdani

But if ko'a is a constant (kind of an) event, what does {ba ko'a mi
klama lo zdani} mean?

I understand the original sentence as having multiple pairs of goings,
with a time relationship claimed for each pair.

ca ro nu mi xagji kei ko'a fasnu

.i ko'a nu ge ko'e fasnu gi ko'i fasnu ba ko'e

.i ko'e nu mi klama lo zarci

.i ko'i nu mi klama lo zdani

Every time I'm hungry, X happens.

X is Y happening and Z happening after Y

Y is my going to the market

Z is my going home

We could, instead of saying that X, Y and Z happen every time, talk about many different instances such that each happens once, but I think that introduces a lot of (sub)entities that are not obviously there in the original sentence.

mu'o mi'e xorxes