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

{{{2}}}

I couldn't make any coherent sense of CLL's "replacement" mechanics for NA and tags

{{{2}}}

I'd be interested if anyone can find sensible comprehensive rules incorporating them

{{{2}}}

I'm sure {na broda .i ja'a go'i} is supposed to mean "!broda (); broda()"

{{{2}}}

that's what CLL says, yes

{{{2}}}

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

{{{2}}}

what about when {go'i} refers to connected bridi?

{{{2}}}

but it doesn't work in practice?

{{{2}}}

And na and ja'a are special, because they can replace each other

{{{2}}}

ge na broda gi brode .i ja'a go'i

{{{2}}}

zugz: I guess go'i refers to the underlying ge-bridi

{{{2}}}

kaxyje'u fa lo du'u na broda kei lo du'u brode

{{{2}}}

so do you replace in both? Or neither? Or in front?

{{{2}}}

at least I can't see any other interpretation

{{{2}}}

ie ja'a kaxyje'u

{{{2}}}

zugz: as "na" isn't at top level, it can't be replaced I think

{{{2}}}

that dilemma doesn't seem to depend on which "replacement" semantics are used

{{{2}}}

because you can't use any GOhA to get at either bridi connected by {ge}, can you?

{{{2}}}

That's like, {cumki fa lo nu broda} {na go'i} ---> the na negates cumki, and not broda

{{{2}}}

I don't see why connectives should be different from tags for this

{{{2}}}

durka42: the go'i series only target main-level bridi

{{{2}}}

if a connective can mask inner tags and NA from being replaced, why not a tag?

{{{2}}}

zugz: I think tags as well are masked if they're not at top-level

{{{2}}}

tags are more like places than connectives ma'i mi

{{{2}}}

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}?

{{{2}}}

durka42: they're scope-dependent, so in that sense they're like connectives

{{{2}}}

have to think about that, I see advantages to both

{{{2}}}

Indeed, in {ba na broda} {na go'i}, the top-level bridi should be "balvi fa lo nu na broda"

{{{2}}}

so the interpretation "na go'i" -> "ba na broda" is weird

{{{2}}}

but if {ca ko'a go'i} can replace the {ca} at whatever scope level it was in the bridi

{{{2}}}

then {na go'i} doing the same thing seems to increase consistency

{{{2}}}

you also have the problem that {ro da na go'i} wouldn't always be equivalent to {na ku su'o da go'i}

{{{2}}}

this is a more serious problem :)

{{{2}}}

durka42: yes, if you ditch NA replacement, you have to ditch tag replacement too

{{{2}}}

but it would still be equivalent to {ro da na ku go'i}, yes?

{{{2}}}

I don't know... depends how you read CLL, I suppose

{{{2}}}

I don't want to drop tag replacement either...

{{{2}}}

but I am a fan of quantifier rules that actually make sense

{{{2}}}

yes, I think that's rather more important in a logical language than making common things easy to say

{{{2}}}

not that the latter wouldn't be nice too

{{{2}}}

what if there are multiple naku terms in a bridi

{{{2}}}

The Japanese way of handling yes/no would have been easier (no replacement)

{{{2}}}

no = jitfa fa lo nu go'i (and not na go'i)

{{{2}}}

yeah, says that in the CLL too

{{{2}}}

yes = jetnu (fa lo nu go'i)

{{{2}}}

I think it's too late to change this though...

{{{2}}}

I don't think it's too late to fix the {ro} issue

{{{2}}}

so I guess I'm opening to fixing this issue as well :p

{{{2}}}

I wish there could be a way to make it consistent without ditching tag replacement

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

{{{2}}}

{{{2}}}

one example I can think of is {A: xu do ba vimcu lo fesydakli / B: mi pu go'i}

{{{2}}}

oh, I assumed only the same tag would get replaced

{{{2}}}

maybe a bad example

{{{2}}}

me too

{{{2}}}

can you remember where this is in CLL?

{{{2}}}

xu do cliva xeka'a lo trene

{{{2}}}

ienai go'i xeka'a lo vinji

{{{2}}}

zugz: besides, CLL claims that even NAhE can be replaced

{{{2}}}

{mi no'e gleki} {mi je'a go'i}