the problem of "go'i"

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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
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