!broda( ); !broda( )
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
I'm sure {na broda .i ja'a go'i} is supposed to mean "!broda (); broda()"
that's what CLL says, yes
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
what about when {go'i} refers to connected bridi?
but it doesn't work in practice?
And na and ja'a are special, because they can replace each other
ge na broda gi brode .i ja'a go'i
zugz: I guess go'i refers to the underlying ge-bridi
kaxyje'u fa lo du'u na broda kei lo du'u brode
so do you replace in both? Or neither? Or in front?
at least I can't see any other interpretation
ie ja'a kaxyje'u
zugz: as "na" isn't at top level, it can't be replaced I think
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?
That's like, {cumki fa lo nu broda} {na go'i} ---> the na negates cumki, and not broda
I don't see why connectives should be different from tags for this
durka42: the go'i series only target main-level bridi
if a connective can mask inner tags and NA from being replaced, why not a tag?
zugz: I think tags as well are masked if they're not at top-level
tags are more like places than connectives ma'i mi
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
have to think about that, I see advantages to both
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
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
you also have the problem that {ro da na go'i} wouldn't always be equivalent to {na ku su'o da go'i}
this is a more serious problem :)
durka42: yes, if you ditch NA replacement, you have to ditch tag replacement too
but it would still be equivalent to {ro da na ku go'i}, yes?
I don't know... depends how you read CLL, I suppose
I don't want to drop tag replacement either...
but I am a fan of quantifier rules that actually make sense
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
what if there are multiple naku terms in a bridi
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)
yeah, says that in the CLL too
yes = jetnu (fa lo nu go'i)
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
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
one example I can think of is {A: xu do ba vimcu lo fesydakli / B: mi pu go'i}
oh, I assumed only the same tag would get replaced
maybe a bad example
me too
can you remember where this is in CLL?
xu do cliva xeka'a lo trene
ienai go'i xeka'a lo vinji
zugz: besides, CLL claims that even NAhE can be replaced
{mi no'e gleki} {mi je'a go'i}
durka42: that might work anyway, depending on what the semantics of BAI like that are