[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2


On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

Well, CLL is quite explicit in considering forethought and afterthought
to be equivalent. And it seems natural to me at least.

It is reasonable, but I don't know how natural. With forethough connectives, the surface form places the two sentences clearly under the scope of the tag. With afterthought the second sentence is under its scope, but it's not so clear for the first. CLL says that both sentences are independently claimed when connected with a tag, which can be strange for some tags, such as "no roi", or say "fi'o natfe". .
 
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).

That could be another reason why forethought and afterthought tag connectives need not be identical. I find the forethought case easier in that I would read it as just a binary predicate with two bridi/event arguments, whereas in the afterthought case it's not unreasonable that the first connectand is being claimed independently.

The mix with logical connectives is the tricky case, but it becomes easier if we think of the tag as modifying only the second connectand, in which case "broda .i je tag bo brode" is just (broda) .ije (tag(brode)). 

> 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?

I guess I was. I could have used a BAI instead:

(3) broda .i ki'u bo brode -> broda .i go'i ki'u lo nu brode 

In my mind it was only PU (and presumably FAhA as well) that behaved oddly as connectives, but I see now that CLL mentions PU, ZI, FAhA, VA and ZAhO. For CLL however, ZAhO is irregular as sumti tcita, so in fact CLL and I would agree again on how ZAhO behave as connectives. We would both say that "broda .i co'a bo brode" means "it brodas, starting when it brodes", but we'd get there by two different roads.

> 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".

Yes, I was taking it as "no roi carvi", not as "no roi glare". With ki'u:

carvi .i jo ki'u bo glare
It rains iff because it's warm.
(Either it rains because it's warm, or it doesn't rain because it's not warm.)

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?

Yes, I was taking "no roi" as following the general pattern, not the tense pattern. 

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.