* Saturday, 2014-11-08 at 19:45 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> It could be something like "replacing with ko'a whichever is the case of lo
> nu broda and lo nu na broda" or "ko'a basti lo nu xu kau broda".
Aha, so a kind of modal version of {u}. Yes, that seems reasonable.
But then I guess {se ba'i} would be like {se.u}, introducing a seltcita
sumti only to then ignore it for logical purposes. So yes, I think I see
what you were saying - in (b) {mi stali lo zdani .i se ba'i bo mi klama
lo zarci}, it's odd to have it claim {mi klama lo zarci}.
But I can't say this strikes me as a strong argument that it shouldn't.
There will always be examples which would have worked had the semantics
been different.
> > > 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...
>
> For many tags do'e can be well defined, but I don't see how you can
> completely get rid of do'e/co'e/etc for a general rule, unless we have a
> context-independent binary relation defined for every tag.
The tag semantics don't have to always be wholly context-independent.
But since many tags (e.g. tenses) have quite specific semantics, I think
we should avoid introducing further sources of vagueness.
> > > 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.
>
> Must "ko'o balvi ko'e" be time-independent? Can't an event happen sometimes
> before and sometimes after another? That would seem to be a requirement
> only for one-instance events.
I don't understand. Could you explain in this example at what times
{ko'o balvi ko'e} would hold?
Martin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature