Re: Meaning of BAI tags

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>           sy. tanru cu'u xorxes
>           1) S is a tanru, spoken by Jorge
>           2) S is a tanru, according to Jorge
>
>I think that's more than a doubt about the precise definition of cu'u, it's a
>--More--
> question about
>BAI tags in general.  The first option leaves the truth of the proposition in
> place and adds
>extra information; the second more fundamentally changes the meaning as if
>cu'u
> were
>actually the main verb and tanru were part of an abstraction (i.e. lenu sy.
> tanru kei se
>cusku xy.)

"spoken by" would be cu'u
"according to" would be du'o

Both change the truth value.
If you add the cu'u and it was NOT said by Jorge, then a true proposition
becomes false
If you add du'o and Jorge doesn't "know" it (i.e. is not a valid source
under any circumstances) then it becomes false.

Many if not most BAIs add a subordinate implication of some sort.

Sometimes,a sentence can be true with a BAI that would not be true without
the BAI.

>More examples:
>          sy. tanru va'o my.
>          1) S is a tanru, and the conditions surrounding the fact of its
> tanrueity are M
>          2) S is a tanru, at least under conditions M
>
>          la .erik limna bai la rabyn.
>          1) Robin forces Erik to swim
>          2) *Robin forces that Erik would swim (somehow implying that Robin
> forces,
>                        but Erik might not swim)
>
>          la selbarna cu mlatu du'u la .and.
>--More--
>          1) Spot is a cat; And knows that
>          2) Spot is the cat that And knows


I think that in all of these, #1 is the one that is implied.

Specifying a BAI adds its place to the main bridi such that the BAI-added
place bceomes  "metaphysically necessary" to the concept.

>I prefer the interpretation where {Prop BAI Sumti} implies {Prop}, but that
> would mean
>we have to be very careful with sentences like:
>
>       Sy. mlatu fi'o selje'u my.
> ...which under my proposal would mean:
>      1) S is a cat, and that's true under epistemology M
> ...but not:
>       2) S is considered a cat under epistemology M (but maybe not under my
>own
> epist).

I think #2 is themeaning.  #1 seems to be a coordinate and not a subordinate
claim.


For purposes of software analysis, I think you can always analyze a given
BAI member the same way, but there is no universal treatement that will
apply to all members of BAI.  (I am a bit soft on that "always" in the first
 clause)

lojbab