Received: from mail-lb0-f192.google.com ([209.85.217.192]:34807) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YfdeT-00067n-OT; Tue, 07 Apr 2015 17:15:32 -0700 Received: by lbiv13 with SMTP id v13sf24424975lbi.1; Tue, 07 Apr 2015 17:15:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=Blno7nFFA1m+VWvvflhtlFDYRfJl6et0nFcnWJjwqPM=; b=Xa9X/XGVx6vybPfYhtHwQjRSRVGX56SJSViHP2yhQaIWZXTGhWDj4wxbXSnHnbqy22 2ot8aY3F7IxFMi34BN03Wyl5UdrVLKKYSliiEoY/AfaABEwBEKVPaKKtyoMX2vM4fEzO 5ul5DANo7LpJW4kk18uHSaMP0CpfhRLPDwSYjYYHflzNNIhPdPxVh9D17KSGC//9oQMH v6IQM3tPw3cUjGWiCYDQ5NtC0Z2XuO6U1RJEOlj8iZw2te+wmhmIdcepFCfzGW0QmsWw xc+ecy5nd2n4XXEuESygTZmALweK/vCKxVArEorQV6mgDLvNycwpY6dEvIlitWST3PXg zTuw== X-Received: by 10.152.36.34 with SMTP id n2mr258228laj.30.1428452122131; Tue, 07 Apr 2015 17:15:22 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.20.67 with SMTP id l3ls115988lae.93.gmail; Tue, 07 Apr 2015 17:15:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.181.166 with SMTP id dx6mr4454653lbc.17.1428452121660; Tue, 07 Apr 2015 17:15:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-x234.google.com (mail-wg0-x234.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c00::234]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q10si115022wiz.0.2015.04.07.17.15.21 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 07 Apr 2015 17:15:21 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::234 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c00::234; Received: by mail-wg0-x234.google.com with SMTP id k9so49571275wgs.3 for ; Tue, 07 Apr 2015 17:15:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.192.167 with SMTP id hh7mr45427447wjc.151.1428452121571; Tue, 07 Apr 2015 17:15:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.27.56.18 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 17:15:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 21:15:21 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpfk] FA as a TAG (Was: One cannot refer to inner nodes in Lojban PEG) From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b8743f848fa1d05132b6dac X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::234 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 972099695765 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.3 X-Spam_score_int: -22 X-Spam_bar: -- --047d7b8743f848fa1d05132b6dac Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Jacob Errington wrote: > I'm making a separate thread out of this because I'm going on a tangent > here. > > On 7 April 2015 at 15:04, wrote: > >> Terms can have FA or tags equally well, but we don't want to merge >> FA with BAI generally, to avoid things like "se fa" and ".i fa bo", >> which are nonsense. > > > I agree that {se fa} has no clear interpretation upon first examination. > However, {.i fa bo} can be interpreted like any other {.i TAG bo} construct. > > .i broda .i TAG bo brode -> .i broda TAG lo su'u brode > > Hence, > .i broda .i fa bo brode -> .i broda fa lo su'u brode > > This provides us with another way to do essentially what {la'e di'e} does. > For instance, > > .i mi pu pensi la'e di'e .i lo mi bruna cu cmalu mutce -> .i mi pu pensi > .ifebo lo mi bruna cu cmalu mutce > I was thinking about this: my brother is very short. > There is a certain formal analogy, which may justify such use, but semantically the tag and the FA cases are different. Taking this idea to the extreme, we can conceive of a somewhat silly > higher-order predicate -- call it {brodrfV} for now -- whose x1 is an > arbitrary sumti and whose x2 is a nullary predicate supplied with than fV > having the value of the x1. We can define {brodrfV} with the following > statement. > > .i ko'a brodrfV lo du'u broda <=> broda fV ko'a > I'm not sure that's a valid definition. If "ko'e du'u ko'a broda" is true, can I then say that "ko'a brodrfa ko'e" is also true? And what if I now re-express ko'e with an expression that doesn't use "ko'a" as the first argument, is it still true that "ko'a brodrfa ko'e"? The problem is that propositions ("nullary predicates") don't have arguments. Given a proposition p, it is not well defined what its brodrfa should be, its brodrfa seems to be a function of the expression we choose to express the proposition. ma brodrfa lo du'u no da klama? ma brodrfa lo du'u na ku ro da klama? We can derive some obvious results from this statement. > > .i lo brodrfV be lo du'u fV ko'a broda === ko'a > .i fV ko'a broda === .i fi'o brodrfV ko'a broda > > This gives us a way to pick out sumti from du'u-abstractions, an otherwise > arduous task for the fancylojban programmer/speaker. > It should be an arduous task because du'u-abstractions don't really have sumti. It's the predicates used to construct du'u-abstractions that have sumti, and the same du'u-abstraction could be constructed with different predicates which could have different arguments. Furthermore, this gives us a way to interpret {se fV}. Since {fV === fi'o > brodrfV}, we have {se fV === fi'o se brodrfV}. > > For instance > .i lo mi bruna cu cmalu mutce se fe lo du'u mi pu pensi -> mi pu pensi lo > du'u lo mi bruna cu cmalu mutce > > I've basically hijacked FA to recreate bridi relative clauses. > > I'm sure there're plenty of holes in this idea since I cooked it up in > just a few minutes. Feel free to come up with weird cases and we can > examine them. > It may be workable, but I wouldn't explain it in terms of brodrfV. It would have to be explained in terms of the words being used, not just in terms of their meanings. Do I want this to be a feature of standard Lojban? Not necessarily. Do I > think it's a cool idea? Sure. I hope you do too :) > ie zabna sidbo mu'o mi'e xorxes -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. --047d7b8743f848fa1d05132b6dac Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Jacob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com&g= t; wrote:
I'm= making a separate thread out of this because I'm going on a tangent he= re.

On 7 April 2015 at 15:04, <cowan@ccil.org> wro= te:
Terms can have FA or tags equally well, but we don't w= ant to merge
FA with BAI generally, to avoid things like "se fa" and ".i = fa bo",
which are nonsense.

I agree that {se fa} ha= s no clear interpretation upon first examination. However, {.i fa bo} can b= e interpreted like any other {.i TAG bo} construct.

.i br= oda .i TAG bo brode -> .i broda TAG lo su'u brode

= Hence,
.i broda .i fa bo brode -> .i broda fa lo su'u = brode

This provides us with another way to do essentially= what {la'e di'e} does. For instance,

.i mi pu pe= nsi la'e di'e .i lo mi bruna cu cmalu mutce -> .i mi pu pensi .i= febo lo mi bruna cu cmalu mutce
I was thinking about this: my= brother is very short.
=
There is a certain formal analogy, which may justify such us= e, but semantically the tag and the FA cases are different.=C2=A0

Taking this idea to the ex= treme, we can conceive of a somewhat silly higher-order predicate -- call i= t {brodrfV} for now -- whose x1 is an arbitrary sumti and whose x2 is a nul= lary predicate supplied with than fV having the value of the x1. We can def= ine {brodrfV} with the following statement.

.i ko'a b= rodrfV lo du'u broda <=3D> broda fV ko'a

I'm not sure that's a= valid definition. If "ko'e du'u ko'a broda" is true,= can I then say that "ko'a brodrfa ko'e" is also true? An= d what if I now re-express ko'e with an expression that doesn't use= "ko'a" as the first argument, is it still true that "ko= 'a brodrfa ko'e"? The problem is that propositions ("null= ary predicates") don't have arguments. Given a proposition p, it i= s not well defined what its brodrfa should be, its brodrfa seems to be a fu= nction of the expression we choose to express the proposition. ma brodrfa l= o du'u no da klama? ma brodrfa lo du'u na ku ro da klama?=C2=A0

We can derive some ob= vious results from this statement.

.i lo brodrfV be lo du= 'u fV ko'a broda =3D=3D=3D ko'a
.i fV ko'a br= oda =3D=3D=3D .i fi'o brodrfV ko'a broda

This gives us a way to pick out sumti from du'u-abstractions, an oth= erwise arduous task for the fancylojban programmer/speaker.
=

It should be an arduous = task because du'u-abstractions don't really have sumti. It's th= e predicates used to construct du'u-abstractions that have sumti, and t= he same du'u-abstraction could be constructed with different predicates= which could have different arguments.=C2=A0

Furthermore, this gives us a way to interpret {s= e fV}. Since {fV =3D=3D=3D fi'o brodrfV}, we have {se fV =3D=3D=3D fi&#= 39;o se brodrfV}.

For instance
.i lo mi bru= na cu cmalu mutce se fe lo du'u mi pu pensi -> mi pu pensi lo du'= ;u lo mi bruna cu cmalu mutce

I've basically hijacked= FA to recreate bridi relative clauses.

I'm sure ther= e're plenty of holes in this idea since I cooked it up in just a few mi= nutes. Feel free to come up with weird cases and we can examine them.

It may be work= able, but I wouldn't explain it in terms of brodrfV. It would have to b= e explained in terms of the words being used, not just in terms of their me= anings.

Do I want = this to be a feature of standard Lojban? Not necessarily. Do I think it'= ;s a cool idea? Sure. I hope you do too :)
=C2=A0
ie zabna sidbo

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bpfk-list= +unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at ht= tp://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--047d7b8743f848fa1d05132b6dac--