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?
> 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.
> > 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...
> 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.