tags as connectives
x:
In that case, it is almost certain that not every tag has an
associated gismu.
pc:
Very true, but each should have a "natural" predicate, not just one made up to be a predicate for a tag.
> > {X i ba bo Y} corresponds to {ba gi Y gi X}
> >whereas
> > {X i ri'a bo Y} corresponds to {ri'a gi X gi Y}
>
> pc:
> I suspect that the discrepancy is connected with the predicates
involved:
> with the typical PU, the following sumti is actually the second
argument of
> the corresponding predicate, with BAI it is the first.
x:
That depends on how you define the "corresponding predicate". If you
define it coherently (ri'a = fi'o rinka, ba = fi'o selbalvi}, then
the predicate that "corresponds" to {ba} is {selbalvi}. The
correspondence of {ba} with {balvi} is etymological, but it is not
the fi'o correspondence, {balvi} is not turned to {ba} with the
cmavo that converts selbri to tags, {selbalvi} is.
pc:
Your claim is getting stranger and stranger. If "corresponding" is to have a meaning it needs to be fixed. Is it the case that we can just take a predicate and declare that some tag corresponds to some permutation of it, without any evidence in the tag? This again makes the whole notion suspect and uninteresting. Notice, for example, that {balvi} explains an apparent anomaly, {se balvi} does not. (Is {seba} even legit?)
On the other hand, the connection between predicate and tag is pretty loose: {bau} is "in a language" not "is a language." Here the outside sentence is not the second argument but the third (and this is true of {sebau} as well). But then {bau} is a bit hard to imagine as a connective (I expect an obvious example here, of course.) So maybe insisting on more than a mnemonic connection is absurd, but you seem to want to do it at all cost.
> The
> afterthought-connective use of the tags, since it clearly comes
between the
> two, adopts the order of the predicate, no longer following the tag
> association of the other uses. Suppose {anai} were associated with
“follows
> from”: then {X ijanai Y} would correspond to {ganai Y gi X} (though
the
> principles involved are somewhat different).
x:
For some strange reason {X iju Y} corresponds to {gu X gi Y}, instead
of {gu Y gi X}.
pc:
Sure? This is too clearly wrong for even CLL to have done, but there it is on p329. How in the Hell did it happen? The text even notes that it is odd. Apparently, the fact that {u} is not symmetric escaped notice — or it was thought that only asymmetries involving negation had to be treated peculiarly. However, it would give some analogy for the peculiarities of PU relative to their corresponding predicates.