* Saturday, 2014-11-08 at 18:02 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > * Saturday, 2014-11-08 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> > > 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)
> >
> > I read CLL as explicitly claiming a relation between events
> > corresponding to the two sides, not leaving one of them up to context
> > like this. So I read it as having
> > (3') {[tag] le nu broda kei brode} (tense)
> > {[tag] le nu brode kei broda} (non-tense)
>
> Agreed, but that means the role of the brode event for tenses and the broda
> event for non-tenses is left up to context, since the tag only guarantees
> the x1 role of its underlying relation. Of course for many tags the role
> for the other event will often also be quite obvious, but it's not a part
> of the general logic of tags. With (3) I wanted to indicate that, but (3')
> also works.
But tags can have semantics which go beyond having something appearing
in the x1 role of an underlying relation, with the rest left up to
context. That may be all a fi'o tag does, but e.g. if ko'a is an event,
then {ba ko'a brode} is an explicitly tensed claim of brode in the
future of ko'a.
{[tag] [[sumti]]} is a modal operator, whose precise semantics are
entirely up to the definition of the tag. We called this "(i)" upthread.
We agree on this really, don't we?
> > > (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).
> >
> > This doesn't work with (3'), and hence not with CLL as I'm reading it.
>
> (3') gives:
>
> ba'i lo nu mi stali lo zdani kei mi na klama lo zarci
> With replacement my staying at home: it is not the case that: I go to the
> market.
>
> I don't think it's too unreasonable for ba'i to provide a relation such
> that basti1 relates to the negation of basti2 rather than to basti2
> directly, since this relation has to be contextual anyway. So I wouldn't
> say it doesn't work with (3'), at worst it takes more work than just
> assuming that "lo nu mi na klama lo zarci" has to take the basti2 role.
I don't see what reasonable general definition of {ba'i ko'a broda}
would make this work. If for any broda it implies the negation of broda,
then {ba'i ko'a na broda} has to imply broda. If it's only for
"positive" broda that it implies the negation of broda, then we'd have
to have a notion of "positive"... and I doubt there's a good one.
> > > 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
> > > (c) mi stali lo zdani .i se ba'i bo mi na klama lo zarci
> > >
> > > Neither (b) nor (c) seems to work well with (1), (2), (3), so we either
> > > have to discard (2), amend (3) somehow.
> >
> > Meanwhile with (1)+(2)+(3'), this definition of {ba'i} gives an
> > immediate contradiction between (1) and (3').
>
> And here we have no escape because the role of lo nu mi na klama lo zarci
> has to be basti2.
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > Yes. Another option, if we do want to keep (1), which given the surface
> > form would I agree be nice, would be to take it as part of the semantics
> > of non-tense tags that {[tag] [[sumti]] broda} implies {broda}. That
> > would rule out this use of {ba'i} entirely.
>
> Or we could still have {[tag] [[sumti]] broda} implying {broda}, but then
> (3') not always equivalent to (3) and it would be plain (3), or possibly
>
> (3'') lo nu broda cu xo'i [tag] do'e lo nu brode (for tense tags)
> lo nu brode cu xo'i [tag] do'e lo nu broda (for non-tense tags)
>
> that expands the tag connective. There doesn't seem to be a strong reason
> to disallow (a).
Using anything like {do'e} would be a move of last resort for me...
> > Evidence in CLL is very slim for non-je tensed logical connections. The
> > only example I know of is the rather strained {mi bevri le dakli .ebake
> > le gerku .acabo le mlatu} (10:17). I think what's there reads most
> > naturally as being a case of "TT-skimming" as described earlier, but
> > I don't think it's enough to force this interpretation.
>
> I don't remember the details of TT-skimming. Was it something like that the
> tag only kicks in when both connectands are true, and is otherwise ignored?
Exactly that, yes. It's main advantage is being relatively simple.
> > >>>>>> 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 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
> >
> > I don't see that this helps at all. Now I have to ask: if ko'e is
> > a constant (kind of an) event, what does {ko'i fasnu ba ko'e} mean?
>
> Oh, I see I didn't expand it enough. OK:
>
> ca ro nu mi xagji kei ko'a fasnu
> ,i ko'a nu ge ko'e fasnu gi ko'i fasnu
> ;i ko'i nu ko'o balvi ko'e
> .i ko'e nu mi klama lo zarci
> .i ko'o nu mi klama lo zdani
OK... now I have to ask what {ko'o balvi ko'e} means!
I expect it to be time-independent - if it holds at some time, then it
holds at all times. But then your expansion doesn't have the intended
meaning.
Martin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature