the problem of "go'i": Difference between revisions

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{irci|tersmus}} !broda( );  !broda( )
{{jboske/en}}
{{irci|zugz}} I couldn't make any coherent sense of CLL's "replacement" mechanics for NA and tags
{{irci|tersmus|!broda( );  !broda( )}}
{{irci|zugz}} I'd be interested if anyone can find sensible comprehensive rules incorporating them
{{irci|zugz|I couldn't make any coherent sense of CLL's "replacement" mechanics for NA and tags<br/>I'd be interested if anyone can find sensible comprehensive rules incorporating them}}
{{irci|durka42}} I'm sure '''na broda .i ja'a go'i''' is supposed to mean "!broda (); broda()"
{{irci|durka42|I'm sure '''na broda .i ja'a go'i''' is supposed to mean "!broda (); broda()"}}
{{irci|zugz}} that's what CLL says, yes
{{irci|zugz|that's what CLL says, yes}}
{{irci|Ilmen}} I'm not fond of this replacement system, but I guess it goes this way: when a tag is used with '''go'i''', the interpreter will search the first occurrence of the same tag in the main-level of the target bridi, and replace it with the new tag-clause
{{irci|Ilmen|I'm not fond of this replacement system, but I guess it goes this way: when a tag is used with '''go'i''', the interpreter will search the first occurrence of the same tag in the main-level of the target bridi, and replace it with the new tag-clause}}
{{irci|zugz}} what about when '''go'i''' refers to connected bridi?
{{irci|zugz|what about when '''go'i''' refers to connected bridi?}}
{{irci|durka42}} but it doesn't work in practice?
{{irci|durka42|but it doesn't work in practice?}}
{{irci|Ilmen}} And na and ja'a are special, because they can replace each other
{{irci|Ilmen|And na and ja'a are special, because they can replace each other}}
{{irci|zugz}} ge na broda gi brode .i ja'a go'i
{{irci|zugz|ge na broda gi brode .i ja'a go'i}}
{{irci|Ilmen}} zugz: I guess go'i refers to the underlying ge-bridi
{{irci|Ilmen|zugz: I guess go'i refers to the underlying ge-bridi<br/>kaxyje'u fa lo du'u na broda kei lo du'u brode}}
{{irci|Ilmen}} kaxyje'u fa lo du'u na broda kei lo du'u brode
{{irci|zugz|so do you replace in both? Or neither? Or in front?}}
{{irci|zugz}} so do you replace in both? Or neither? Or in front?
{{irci|Ilmen|at least I can't see any other interpretation}}
{{irci|Ilmen}} at least I can't see any other interpretation
{{irci|durka42|ie ja'a kaxyje'u}}
{{irci|durka42}} ie ja'a kaxyje'u
{{irci|Ilmen|zugz: as "na" isn't at top level, it can't be replaced I think}}
{{irci|Ilmen}} zugz: as "na" isn't at top level, it can't be replaced I think
{{irci|durka42|that dilemma doesn't seem to depend on which "replacement" semantics are used<br/>because you can't use any GOhA to get at either bridi connected by '''ge''', can you?}}
{{irci|durka42}} that dilemma doesn't seem to depend on which "replacement" semantics are used
{{irci|Ilmen|That's like, '''cumki fa lo nu broda''' '''na go'i''' ---> the na negates cumki, and not broda}}
{{irci|durka42}} because you can't use any GOhA to get at either bridi connected by '''ge''', can you?
{{irci|zugz|I don't see why connectives should be different from tags for this}}
{{irci|Ilmen}} That's like, '''cumki fa lo nu broda''' '''na go'i''' ---> the na negates cumki, and not broda
{{irci|Ilmen|durka42: the go'i series only target main-level bridi}}
{{irci|zugz}} I don't see why connectives should be different from tags for this
{{irci|zugz|if a connective can mask inner tags and NA from being replaced, why not a tag?}}
{{irci|Ilmen}} durka42: the go'i series only target main-level bridi
{{irci|Ilmen|zugz: I think tags as well are masked if they're not at top-level}}
{{irci|zugz}} if a connective can mask inner tags and NA from being replaced, why not a tag?
{{irci|durka42|tags are more like places than connectives ma'i mi}}
{{irci|Ilmen}} zugz: I think tags as well are masked if they're not at top-level
{{irci|zugz|do we really want '''ba ja'a broda .i na go'i''' -> '''ba na broda''' but '''ba broda .i na go'i''' -> '''na ba broda'''?<br/>durka42: they're scope-dependent, so in that sense they're like connectives}}
{{irci|durka42}} tags are more like places than connectives ma'i mi
{{irci|durka42|have to think about that, I see advantages to both}}
{{irci|zugz}} do we really want '''ba ja'a broda .i na go'i''' -> '''ba na broda''' but '''ba broda .i na go'i''' -> '''na ba broda'''?
{{irci|Ilmen|Indeed, in '''ba na broda''' '''na go'i''', the top-level bridi should be "balvi fa lo nu na broda"<br/>so the interpretation "na go'i" -> "ba na broda" is weird}}
{{irci|zugz}} durka42: they're scope-dependent, so in that sense they're like connectives
{{irci|durka42|but if '''ca ko'a go'i''' can replace the '''ca''' at whatever scope level it was in the bridi<br/>then '''na go'i''' doing the same thing seems to increase consistency}}
{{irci|durka42}} have to think about that, I see advantages to both
{{irci|zugz|you also have the problem that '''ro da na go'i''' wouldn't always be equivalent to '''na ku su'o da go'i'''}}
{{irci|Ilmen}} Indeed, in '''ba na broda''' '''na go'i''', the top-level bridi should be "balvi fa lo nu na broda"
{{irci|durka42|this is a more serious problem :)}}
{{irci|Ilmen}} so the interpretation "na go'i" -> "ba na broda" is weird
{{irci|zugz|durka42: yes, if you ditch NA replacement, you have to ditch tag replacement too}}
{{irci|durka42}} but if '''ca ko'a go'i''' can replace the '''ca''' at whatever scope level it was in the bridi
{{irci|durka42|but it would still be equivalent to '''ro da na ku go'i''', yes?}}
{{irci|durka42}} then '''na go'i''' doing the same thing seems to increase consistency
{{irci|zugz|I don't know... depends how you read CLL, I suppose}}
{{irci|zugz}} you also have the problem that '''ro da na go'i''' wouldn't always be equivalent to '''na ku su'o da go'i'''
{{irci|durka42|I don't want to drop tag replacement either...<br/>but I am a fan of quantifier rules that actually make sense}}
{{irci|durka42}} this is a more serious problem :)
{{irci|zugz|yes, I think that's rather more important in a logical language than making common things easy to say<br/>not that the latter wouldn't be nice too}}
{{irci|zugz}} durka42: yes, if you ditch NA replacement, you have to ditch tag replacement too
{{irci|durka42|what if there are multiple naku terms in a bridi}}
{{irci|durka42}} but it would still be equivalent to '''ro da na ku go'i''', yes?
{{irci|Ilmen|The Japanese way of handling yes/no would have been easier (no replacement)<br/>no = jitfa fa lo nu go'i  (and not na go'i)}}
{{irci|zugz}} I don't know... depends how you read CLL, I suppose
{{irci|durka42|yeah, says that in the CLL too}}
{{irci|durka42}} I don't want to drop tag replacement either...
{{irci|Ilmen|yes = jetnu (fa lo nu go'i)}}
{{irci|durka42}} but I am a fan of quantifier rules that actually make sense
{{irci|durka42|I think it's too late to change this though...<br/>I don't think it's too late to fix the '''ro''' issue<br/>so I guess I'm opening to fixing this issue as well :p<br/>I wish there could be a way to make it consistent without ditching tag replacement<br/>[http://korp.alexburka.com/#?cqp=%5B(pos%20%3D%20%22PU%22%20%7C%20pos%20%3D%20%22BAI%22)%5D%20%5B%5D%20%5Bpos%20%3D%20%22GOhA%22%5D&stats_reduce=word&search_tab=2&search=cqp%7C%5B(pos%20%3D%20%22PU%22%20%7C%20pos%20%3D%20%22BAI%22)%5D%20%5Bpos%20%3D%20%22GOhA%22%5D link]<br/>one example I can think of is '''A: xu do ba vimcu lo fesydakli / B: mi pu go'i'''}}
{{irci|zugz}} yes, I think that's rather more important in a logical language than making common things easy to say
{{irci|zugz|oh, I assumed only the same tag would get replaced}}
{{irci|zugz}} not that the latter wouldn't be nice too
{{irci|durka42|maybe a bad example}}
{{irci|durka42}} what if there are multiple naku terms in a bridi
{{irci|Ilmen|me too}}
{{irci|Ilmen}} The Japanese way of handling yes/no would have been easier (no replacement)
{{irci|zugz|can you remember where this is in CLL?}}
{{irci|Ilmen}} no = jitfa fa lo nu go'i  (and not na go'i)
{{irci|durka42|xu do cliva xeka'a lo trene<br/>ienai go'i xeka'a lo vinji}}
{{irci|durka42}} yeah, says that in the CLL too
{{irci|Ilmen|zugz: besides, CLL claims that even NAhE can be replaced<br/>'''mi no'e gleki''' '''mi je'a go'i'''}}
{{irci|Ilmen}} yes = jetnu (fa lo nu go'i)
{{irci|zugz|durka42: that might work anyway, depending on what the semantics of BAI like that are}}
{{irci|durka42}} I think it's too late to change this though...
{{irci|durka42}} I don't think it's too late to fix the '''ro''' issue
{{irci|durka42}} so I guess I'm opening to fixing this issue as well :p
{{irci|durka42}} I wish there could be a way to make it consistent without ditching tag replacement
{{irci|durka42}} [http://korp.alexburka.com/#?cqp=%5B(pos%20%3D%20%22PU%22%20%7C%20pos%20%3D%20%22BAI%22)%5D%20%5B%5D%20%5Bpos%20%3D%20%22GOhA%22%5D&stats_reduce=word&search_tab=2&search=cqp%7C%5B(pos%20%3D%20%22PU%22%20%7C%20pos%20%3D%20%22BAI%22)%5D%20%5Bpos%20%3D%20%22GOhA%22%5D link]
{{irci|durka42}} one example I can think of is '''A: xu do ba vimcu lo fesydakli / B: mi pu go'i'''
{{irci|zugz}} oh, I assumed only the same tag would get replaced
{{irci|durka42}} maybe a bad example
{{irci|Ilmen}} me too
{{irci|zugz}} can you remember where this is in CLL?
{{irci|durka42}} xu do cliva xeka'a lo trene
{{irci|durka42}} ienai go'i xeka'a lo vinji
{{irci|Ilmen}} zugz: besides, CLL claims that even NAhE can be replaced
{{irci|Ilmen}} '''mi no'e gleki''' '''mi je'a go'i'''
{{irci|zugz}} durka42: that might work anyway, depending on what the semantics of BAI like that are

Revision as of 15:24, 23 December 2014

Template:Jboske/en

tersmus !broda( ); !broda( )
zugz I couldn't make any coherent sense of CLL's "replacement" mechanics for NA and tags
I'd be interested if anyone can find sensible comprehensive rules incorporating them
durka42 I'm sure na broda .i ja'a go'i is supposed to mean "!broda (); broda()"
zugz that's what CLL says, yes
Ilmen I'm not fond of this replacement system, but I guess it goes this way: when a tag is used with go'i, the interpreter will search the first occurrence of the same tag in the main-level of the target bridi, and replace it with the new tag-clause
zugz what about when go'i refers to connected bridi?
durka42 but it doesn't work in practice?
Ilmen And na and ja'a are special, because they can replace each other
zugz ge na broda gi brode .i ja'a go'i
Ilmen zugz: I guess go'i refers to the underlying ge-bridi
kaxyje'u fa lo du'u na broda kei lo du'u brode
zugz so do you replace in both? Or neither? Or in front?
Ilmen at least I can't see any other interpretation
durka42 ie ja'a kaxyje'u
Ilmen zugz: as "na" isn't at top level, it can't be replaced I think
durka42 that dilemma doesn't seem to depend on which "replacement" semantics are used
because you can't use any GOhA to get at either bridi connected by ge, can you?
Ilmen That's like, cumki fa lo nu broda na go'i ---> the na negates cumki, and not broda
zugz I don't see why connectives should be different from tags for this
Ilmen durka42: the go'i series only target main-level bridi
zugz if a connective can mask inner tags and NA from being replaced, why not a tag?
Ilmen zugz: I think tags as well are masked if they're not at top-level
durka42 tags are more like places than connectives ma'i mi
zugz do we really want ba ja'a broda .i na go'i -> ba na broda but ba broda .i na go'i -> na ba broda?
durka42: they're scope-dependent, so in that sense they're like connectives
durka42 have to think about that, I see advantages to both
Ilmen Indeed, in ba na broda na go'i, the top-level bridi should be "balvi fa lo nu na broda"
so the interpretation "na go'i" -> "ba na broda" is weird
durka42 but if ca ko'a go'i can replace the ca at whatever scope level it was in the bridi
then na go'i doing the same thing seems to increase consistency
zugz you also have the problem that ro da na go'i wouldn't always be equivalent to na ku su'o da go'i
durka42 this is a more serious problem :)
zugz durka42: yes, if you ditch NA replacement, you have to ditch tag replacement too
durka42 but it would still be equivalent to ro da na ku go'i, yes?
zugz I don't know... depends how you read CLL, I suppose
durka42 I don't want to drop tag replacement either...
but I am a fan of quantifier rules that actually make sense
zugz yes, I think that's rather more important in a logical language than making common things easy to say
not that the latter wouldn't be nice too
durka42 what if there are multiple naku terms in a bridi
Ilmen {{{2}}}
durka42 yeah, says that in the CLL too
Ilmen {{{2}}}
durka42 {{{2}}}
zugz oh, I assumed only the same tag would get replaced
durka42 maybe a bad example
Ilmen me too
zugz can you remember where this is in CLL?
durka42 xu do cliva xeka'a lo trene
ienai go'i xeka'a lo vinji
Ilmen zugz: besides, CLL claims that even NAhE can be replaced
mi no'e gleki mi je'a go'i
zugz durka42: that might work anyway, depending on what the semantics of BAI like that are
Retrieved from "https://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=the_problem_of_%22go%27i%22&oldid=110658"