Received: from mail-bw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.214.61]:43940)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRDUvbv2BBoEC4IeYg@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RTjV5-0007Cn-K9; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 16:18:49 -0800
Received: by bkat2 with SMTP id t2sf3745442bka.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 16:18:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
         :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender
         :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list
         :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender
         :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=fk/j48dYMJuJ/CzyoYwfFGZpbovmsMBtwqbE/Wp2F1w=;
        b=tyZYwkGTIswgbXLjAU5V4f1/ZG0T496CrpzS8WUpeHbu0jId3kmKEX3vNiXkWBE43+
         dJcQLQtz8IBCeJvA2vd50Jx9kMVWzmGAq7MOsb19KGZf5LLg9jDG0Z/zGsVbNxK3B32Z
         yH7rVFIbdsXfwuoU+SnkvhUsDbs0rFD9dt1Ek=
Received: by 10.205.122.71 with SMTP id gf7mr4546059bkc.20.1322180308381;
        Thu, 24 Nov 2011 16:18:28 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.204.152.154 with SMTP id g26ls1249538bkw.3.gmail; Thu, 24 Nov
 2011 16:18:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.204.154.136 with SMTP id o8mr4649572bkw.2.1322180307142;
        Thu, 24 Nov 2011 16:18:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.204.154.136 with SMTP id o8mr4649571bkw.2.1322180307128;
        Thu, 24 Nov 2011 16:18:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-fx0-f41.google.com (mail-fx0-f41.google.com [209.85.161.41])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h3si13363581fao.3.2011.11.24.16.18.27
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Thu, 24 Nov 2011 16:18:27 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.41 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.41;
Received: by faas10 with SMTP id s10so3381073faa.28
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 16:18:27 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.113.101 with SMTP id ix5mr18932409lab.23.1322180306977;
 Thu, 24 Nov 2011 16:18:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.152.19.198 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 16:18:26 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20111124044118.GF6112@gonzales>
References: <20111124044118.GF6112@gonzales>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 21:18:26 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2cfhJtrvLX1S6Mga_CJU2nLyt96_4DR=ygJksH3ixaamg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] semantic parser - tersmu-0.1rc1
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.41 as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:41 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> Probably not bugs:
> =A0 =A0This might at first seem wrong:
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0> na ku mi noi brode cu broda
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Prop:!(brode(mi) /\ broda(mi))

It does seem wrong to me. A noi-clause is more like a presupposition,
not directly part of the claim.

I'd say it's more like:

presupp Prop: brode(mi)
main Prop: !broda(mi)

> =A0 =A0but consider that e.g.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0> na ku da ro broda be da ku noi brodi cu brodu
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Prop:!EX x1. FA x2:(broda(_,x1)). (brodu(x1,x2) /\ brodi(x=
2))
> =A0 =A0is probably right.

I don't think a noi-clause is well-defined when it is attached to
something that doesn't have referents. You need a referent in order to
be able to make a comment about it. It may be that noi forces
something like:

?presupp Prop: FA x1. FA x2:(broda(_,x1). brodi(x2)
main Prop: !EX x1. FA x2:(broda(_,x1)). brodu(x1,x2)

I'm not completely sure if that's exactly what the presupposition
should be, but I do believe the main proposition should not be
affected if you remove any noi-clause from it.

> =A0 =A0Also,
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0> ro da na ku broda .i je de brode
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Prop:FA x1. !EX x2. (broda(x1) /\ brode(x2))
> =A0 =A0is right, because
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0> ro da na ku broda de .i je de brode
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Prop:FA x1. !EX x2. (broda(x1,x2) /\ brode(x2))
> =A0 =A0has to be; c.f.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0> ro da na broda de .i je de brode
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Prop:FA x1. EX x2. (!broda(x1,x2) /\ brode(x2)) .

This is a hairy issue. My instinct has always been that ".ije" should
be able to connect prenexed sentences, but the official grammar does
say otherwise.

BTW, how do you analyse "su'o da na broda" and "su'o da na broda gi'e na br=
ode"?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou=
ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban=
?hl=3Den.