* Tuesday, 2014-10-28 at 20:28 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > [BAI] gi bakni gi zajba
> > se [BAI] gi zajba gi bakni
>
> Right, it would only work for BAIs that come from a selbri with events in
> (only) x1 and x2. I don't know what "pu'e gi broda gi brode" means, for
> example. Is it equivalent to "se pu'e gi brode gi broda", "te pu'e gi brode
> gi broda", "ve pu'e gi brode gi broda", something else?
Nothing that can be neatly expressed, I expect.
> > {[tag] gi broda gi brodu}.
>
> Must we be claiming an event of broda occurs though? Without any context,
> I'd tend to read it as very generic, something like "never when it brodas
> it brodus", or more likely in Enlish "it never brodus when it brodas",
> which doesn't really claim that an event of broda occurs.
> [...]
> My first interpretation would be something like "na ku lo nu
> brodu cu balvi lo nu broda".
Interesting! The arguments I gave for
> > su'o da tu'e da fasnu gi'e nu broda .i [tag] da brodu
made assumptions you're breaking. I agree this is a possible solution,
but see below.
> I'm now not too sure that forethought and afterthought tag connectives are
> completely equivalent, because given "broda .i (ku'i) no roi bo brodu" I
> would want to read it as "it brodas, (but) never when it brodus". But
> that's because I see broda as a separate sentence in the afterthought case,
> but not in the forethought case. It's hard not to see broda as being
> asserted in the afterthought case.
Right, I see.
Well, CLL is quite explicit in considering forethought and afterthought
to be equivalent. And it seems natural to me at least.
I suggest we concentrate on afterthought for now, anyway. I was only
using forethought for concision. And the tricky case of tensed logical
connectives doesn't have a forethought form (bizarrely).
> > > Now:
> > > broda .i [jek tag] bo brode
> > > -> broda .i [jek] brode [(se} tag] lo nu xu kau broda
> > . For simplicity, let's assume the tag is a tense (so there's no {se}).
>
> It seems the rules for tenses are quite different than the rules for most
> tags:
>
> (1) broda .i ba bo brode -> broda .i ba la'e di'u brode
> (2) broda .i no roi bo brode -> broda .i go'i no roi lo nu brode
I don't see at all how you get (2)!
Are you considering {no roi} to not be a tense? Why, if so?
> In other words, "tag bo" only affects the reading of the second connectand,
> or so it seems to me at this point, and tenses affect it in a different way
> than most other tags.
> > Again, if this is to work in embedded scopes, I think we need to recast
> > it in terms of quantification over events.
> >
> > Annoyingly, I can't see a way to do that that's uniform over the
> > possible jeks. But e.g. for {jo}, I guess it would have to be:
> > da zo'u ge da fasnu
> > gi ga ge da nu broda gi [tag] da brode
> > gi ge da nu na broda gi [tag] da na brode
> >
> > Is that faithful to your intention?
>
> Let's see, this would be my current thinking:
>
> carvi i jo glare
> It rains iff it's warm.
>
> carvi .i jo ba bo glare
> It rains iff later it's warm.
> (Either it rains and then later it's warm, or else it doesn't rain and then
> later it isn't warm.)
That seems to agree.
> carvi .i jo no roi bo glare
> It rains iff never when it's warm.
> (Either it rains but never when it's warm, or it doesn't rain but at least
> once when not warm.)
This seems not to. The quantificational semantics above would render it
as "either it rains and is never warm during that raining, or it doesn't
rain and is not never warm during that non-raining".
Ah, but perhaps this is just because you have {no roi} as not being
a tense. Considering it as not a tense, raining and warmth would be
swapped. Does that then agree with what you get?
Martin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature