Forethought Tanru-Internal TAG Connectives

[Jacob Errington]

I'll get straight to the point: they don't exist.

The lack of consistency annoys me, as I'm sure it does others, too. It's part of what makes me in favour of the connective reform involving such things as {gije} as a replacement for {gi'e}, which would equally provide us with a means for producing non-logical bridi-tail afterthought connectives.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

P.S. It occurred to me that they didn't exist when I tried translating "We do what we must because we can" as *{.i zukte lo semu'igi se bilga gi se zifre}, but {TAGgi} only works for non-tanru-internal forethought connectives. Using {zukte semu'igi lo se bilga gi lo se zifre} is out of the question because the meaning is different. I want to get at the meaning of "we do the (things that we must do because we can do them)" rather than "(we do the things that we must do) (because we can do them)." Of course I can resort to a zo'e-noi construct as a patch, but that's far more inelegant: {.i zukte zo'e noi ke'a semu'igi se bilga gi se zifre}. In sum, the fact that these types of connectives don't exist is frustrating and inconsistent and should be fixed in order for the language to be in accordance with its philosophy.

[selpa'i]

la tsani cu cusku di'e

> I'll get straight to the point: they don't exist.

In general, there is a lack of forethought TAG connectives [1]. You can
say {TAG gi broda gi brode}, but not *{ge BAI gi/bo? broda gi brode},
although you can do it with afterthoughts: {broda gi'e TAG bo brode}.
And then there the reverse also doesn't work; that is, TAG afterthoughts
without logical connectives like *{ko'a bai bo ko'e}.

Also, the current parsers don't like {ge broda gi ba bo brode}.

> The lack of consistency annoys me, as I'm sure it does others, too. It's
> part of what makes me in favour of the connective reform involving such
> things as {gije} as a replacement for {gi'e}, which would equally
> provide us with a means for producing non-logical bridi-tail
> afterthought connectives.

That makes us at least four or five then.

> P.S. It occurred to me that they didn't exist when I tried translating
> "We do what we must because we can" as *{.i zukte lo semu'igi se bilga
> gi se zifre}, but {TAGgi} only works for non-tanru-internal forethought
> connectives.

Do you want a forethought version of {lo se bilga je mu'i bo se bilga}
or one without the logical connective? I think both should be allowed to
exist, but currently neither does.

(Under GIJA) would something like {se mu'i gu broda gi brode} work? As a
reminder, GU would be the GI of tanru forethoughts (GUJA replacing GUhA).

> Using {zukte semu'igi lo se bilga gi lo se zifre} is out of
> the question because the meaning is different. I want to get at the
> meaning of "we do the (things that we must do because we can do them)"
> rather than "(we do the things that we must do) (because we can do

> them)." In sum, the fact that these types of connectives don't exist

> is frustrating and inconsistent and should be fixed in order for the
> language to be in accordance with its philosophy.

Amen.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

[1] This table (from CLL Chapter 14, Section 20) clearly shows that
forethoughts don't come with TAG support:

construct afterth. foreth. afterth. foreth.
logical logical non-log. non-log.
--------- ------- ------- -------- --------

bridi ijek* gek ijoik* joigik
sumti ek* gek joik* joigik
bridi-tails gihek* gek --- joigik
termsets ek* gek joik* joigik
tanru parts jek guhek joik* ---
operands ek* gek joik* joigik
operators jek guhek joik ---
tenses/modals jek --- joik ---
abstractors jek --- joik ---

An asterisk (*) indicates that tensed connection is permitted.

[la gleki]

On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 1:54:36 PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote:

la tsani cu cusku di'e
> I'll get straight to the point: they don't exist.

In general, there is a lack of forethought TAG connectives [1]. You can
say {TAG gi broda gi brode}, but not *{ge BAI gi/bo? broda gi brode},
although you can do it with afterthoughts: {broda gi'e TAG bo brode}.
And then there the reverse also doesn't work; that is, TAG afterthoughts
without logical connectives like *{ko'a bai bo ko'e}.

Also, the current parsers don't like {ge broda gi ba bo brode}.

> The lack of consistency annoys me, as I'm sure it does others, too. It's
> part of what makes me in favour of the connective reform involving such
> things as {gije} as a replacement for {gi'e}, which would equally
> provide us with a means for producing non-logical bridi-tail
> afterthought connectives.

That makes us at least four or five then.

ja'o ei ciska lo cnino me cylyly gijenai casnu do'e lo mriste 

i da'i ma ba te vecnu lo pelji me cylyly pe ra'i la'oi docbook i ainai mi te vecnu lo pelji co'e

iseni'ibo na nitcu lo simsa cukta i lo uitki me cylyly ba banzu

[Michael Turniansky]

I always interepreted that lyric as, in fact, "(we do the things that we must do) (because we can do them)".  Nonetheless, to get at your intended meaning, what's wrong with "zukte lo se bilga be semu'i lo nu se zifre"? 

     --gejyspa

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com> wrote:

P.S. It occurred to me that they didn't exist when I tried translating "We do what we must because we can" as *{.i zukte lo semu'igi se bilga gi se zifre}, but {TAGgi} only works for non-tanru-internal forethought connectives. Using {zukte semu'igi lo se bilga gi lo se zifre} is out of the question because the meaning is different. I want to get at the meaning of "we do the (things that we must do because we can do them)" rather than "(we do the things that we must do) (because we can do them)." Of course I can resort to a zo'e-noi construct as a patch, but that's far more inelegant: {.i zukte zo'e noi ke'a semu'igi se bilga gi se zifre}. In sum, the fact that these types of connectives don't exist is frustrating and inconsistent and should be fixed in order for the language to be in accordance with its philosophy.

--