Okay, a bunch of sources I read kept disagreeing with me, and some of them sounded pretty certain about it. So I checked the OED (which is clearly infallible). There all a whole set of sense under VIII, and the descreption for that is "Supplying the place of the dative in various other languages and in the earlier stages of English itself." Further, under 32a, it goes so far as to say "*a.* In the syntactical const. of many transitive verbs, introducing the indirect or dative object." So I think it's still fine, but it would be more technically the dative. Simple fix: put "(technically, with no dative)" afterward to clear up any ambiguity. People who don't know what a dative is can just pay attention to the indirect object bit, and still be at least sort of correct.
-Aris On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:40 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm 90% sure that it's still also the indirect object. In Latin, it's > marked with the dative case (indicating an indirect object) rather than > with a preposition, but is still translated as to. It also makes > significantly more sense that way, because it receives the action of the > verb indirectly. When I show something to you, offer it to you, and then > give it to you, you're receiving some of the action of the verb in each > case. This differs from me going to you, in which case it can be replaced > with towards, and merely indicates motion. This [1] also agrees with me, > see sense English preposition #9. English grammar appears to indicate it as > if it were an ordinary prepositional phrase, but it's semantically still > also the indirect object (the two are interchangeable at any rate). All the > sources I can find are rather informal and pragmatic though, and seem to > disagree, so it's possible I'm wrong about this. > > [1] https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/to > > -Aris > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:13 PM ATMunn <iamingodsa...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> <p class="grammar-nerd"> >> "with no indirect object" by itself would not work in a rule, because "I >> pay x things to y" is the same as "I pay y x things," but the former has >> no indirect object (y is in a prepositional phrase). >> </p> >> >> On 4/25/2018 7:21 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: >> > Well, I'm just gonna add that to the list of things I've broken. I >> > haven't read through this thread all the way but it looks like things >> > have gotten pretty technical. HOWEVER, I'm glad this is finally being >> > addressed. The quickest solution would be just to add a clause that >> says >> > if Agora owns any PAoaM currencies, they are instead destroyed and then >> > alias "pay" with no indirect object to "transfer to Agora" >> > >> > Speaking of PAoaM currencies, they should have a collective name, no? >> > >> > On 04/25/2018 04:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: >> >> I think you mean a non-empty multiset. Also, I don't see any reason to >> >> require the set to be non-empty. That's sensible for constant fees but >> >> could break some types of variable fee. >> >> >> >> Here's a phrasing that includes the default and rounds correctly: >> >> >> >> "If the Rules associate payment of a multiset of assets (hereafter the >> >> fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an >> >> action, that action is a fee-based action. If the fee is a specified >> >> in terms of a non-natural number of assets, the fee is rounded up to >> >> the nearest natural number. If the fee is specified in terms of a >> >> number without a specified unit, the unit is the official currency of >> >> Agora." >> >> >> >> This allows complex fees, which is fine, given that a complex (or >> >> otherwise unreal) fee is impossible to pay and is simply equivalent to >> >> making the action impossible. >> >> >> >> -Aris >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I tried a version with general assets, if this is ugly can restrict to >> >>> currencies... >> >>> >> >>> Proto v2: Let's really define payment solidly please, finally. >> >>> >> >>> Create the following Rule, Fee-based actions: >> >>> >> >>> If the Rules associate payment of a non-empty set of assets >> >>> (hereafter >> >>> the fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with >> >>> performing an >> >>> action, that action is a fee-based action. >> >>> If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset, >> >>> the actual >> >>> fee is the next highest integer amount of that asset. >> >>> >> >>> [Takes out default - if you mean Coins in the Rules say Coins, if you >> >>> fail to specify a type of asset your rule is broken]. >> >>> >> >>> To perform a fee-based action, an entity (the Actor) who is >> >>> otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce that >> e >> >>> is performing the action; the announcement must specify the >> >>> correct set of assets for the fee and indicate intent >> >>> to pay that fee for the sole purpose of performing the >> action. >> >>> >> >>> Upon such an announcement: >> >>> >> >>> - If the Rules specify a recipient for the fee, and the Actor >> >>> CAN transfer that specified fee from emself to the >> recipient, >> >>> then that fee is transferred from the Actor to the >> recipient >> >>> and the action is performed simultaneously; >> >>> >> >>> - If the Rules do not specify a recipient, and the Actor CAN >> >>> destroy the specified fee in eir possession, then that fee >> >>> in eir possession is destroyed and the action is >> >>> performed simultaneously. >> >>> >> >>> - Otherwise, no changes are made to asset holdings and the >> >>> action is not performed. >> >>> >> >>> If the Rules define a fee-based action but the specified >> >>> set of assets is the empty set, then the action is performed >> by >> >>> announcement, but the announcement must include that there >> >>> is an (empty or 0) fee for the action. >> >>> >> >>> [Without this 0 edge case: arguments on the nature of the empty set >> >>> galore!] >> >>> >> >>> [Todo: change rules to use this wording, remove "pay" = "transfer" >> >>> definition >> >>> currently in rules] >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote: >> >>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> If the Rules associate a non-negative fee (syn: cost, >> price, >> >>>>>>> charge), with an action, or state that an action CAN be >> >>>>>>> performed >> >>>>>>> by paying a fee, that action is a fee-based action. If the >> >>>>>>> specified cost is not an integer, the actual fee is the >> next >> >>>>>>> highest integer. The currency of the fee is either the >> >>>>>>> currency associated with that action, or Coins if no >> currency >> >>>>>>> is specified. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> "next higher". What if a cost is in a non-currency asset? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I've been trying to figure out wording for non-fungible assets and >> >>>>> failing. >> >>>>> (or at least failing to do both fungible and non-fungible in the >> same >> >>>>> paragraph while keeping it concise). >> >>>> >> >>>> It may be too complicated, but then the first sentence should >> >>>> explicitly state >> >>>> that it only applies to fees in currencies, lest it be triggered >> >>>> accidentally >> >>>> by other "costs", after which the last sentence could absurdly >> >>>> change the cost >> >>>> into Coins. >> >>>> >> >>>>>> "and announce that there is a fee for performing that specific >> >>>>>> action" >> >>>>>> seems a >> >>>>>> bit redundant, and doesn't seem quite like the thing people do when >> >>>>>> phrasing >> >>>>>> payments naturally. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> How about: >> >>>>> To perform a fee-based action, an entity (the Actor) who >> is >> >>>>> otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce >> >>>>> that e >> >>>>> is performing the action; the announcement must specify >> the >> >>>>> correct amount and currency of the fee and indicate >> intent >> >>>>> to pay that fee for the sole purpose of performing the >> >>>>> action. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I think "I pay 5 coins to do X" indicates intent to pay the fee as >> >>>>> per that >> >>>>> wording? >> >>>> >> >>>> Yeah. >> >>>> >> >>>> Greetings, >> >>>> Ørjan. >> >>>> >> > >> >
