the problem of "go'i"
From Lojban
 | This page contains discussions of experimental/scientific/philosophical/logical aspects of Lojban that are non-official and not for everyday usage. You've been warned. |
| 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 | The Japanese way of handling yes/no would have been easier (no replacement) no = jitfa fa lo nu go'i (and not na go'i) |
| durka42 | yeah, says that in the CLL too |
| Ilmen | yes = jetnu (fa lo nu go'i) |
| durka42 | I think it's too late to change this though... I don't think it's too late to fix the ro issue so I guess I'm opening to fixing this issue as well :p I wish there could be a way to make it consistent without ditching tag replacement link one example I can think of is A: xu do ba vimcu lo fesydakli / B: mi pu go'i |
| 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 |
