Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.46 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.46;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20111125195038.GA29512@gonzales>
References: <20111124044118.GF6112@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2cfhJtrvLX1S6Mga_CJU2nLyt96_4DR=ygJksH3ixaamg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20111125195038.GA29512@gonzales>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 20:22:11 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2ezxrDKHEDQx1k7O1+E_FsviPXYOK=R8aU3xVy2C4kb6g@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
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> Consider analogous english phrases:
>
> Not one of the farmers owns donkeys, which he beats, with long ears.
>
> (excuse sexist pronoun; using anything else would confuse the issue)

The way I read that sentence, it is false if a farmer owns any donkey
with long ears. You allow for farmers owning donkeys with long ears,
as long as they don't beat them. Your expansion seems to me to be the
one for "poi", not "noi".

> I think the relative phrase here is, on its own, unambiguously
> incidental. But the sentence does not imply that all of the farmers beat
> their donkeys.

If the non-restrictive clause was moved to the end, it would simply
that farmers beat donkeys with long ears (but don't own them).

The way you have it, with "noi" coming before "poi", I would say it
says that farmers beat donkeys (whether they own them or not).

> Similarly: "Each boy carried his bag. Two of the boys carried his bag,
> which contained his lunch, on his head" doesn't imply that each bag
> contained its owner's lunch. Again, this agrees with:
>
> ro lo nanla goi ny cu bevri lo ri dakli .i je re ny stedu cpana bevri lo
> ri dakli noi vasru lo ri sanmi

(Do you get "re ny" to parse as intended? What grammar are you using?)

> Prop: {lo} x1:(nanla(_)). FA x2:(me(_,x1)). {lo} x3:((srana(x2,_) /\
> =A0 =A0dakli(_))). EQ(2) x4:(me(_,x1)). {lo} x5:((srana(x4,_) /\
> =A0 =A0dakli(_))). (bevri(x2,x3) /\ (<<stedu(_)><cpana>(_)><bevri>(x4,x5)
> =A0 =A0/\ {lo} x6:((srana(x4,_) /\ sanmi(_))). vasru(x5,x6)))
>
> jbo: lo nanla ku goi ko'a ro da poi ke'a me ko'a ku'o lo poi'i ge da
> =A0 =A0srana ke'a gi ke'a dakli kei ku goi ko'e 2 de poi ke'a me ko'a ku'=
o lo
> =A0 =A0poi'i ge de srana ke'a gi ke'a dakli kei ku goi ko'i zo'u ge da be=
vri
> =A0 =A0ko'e gi ge de ke ke stedu cpana ke'e bevri ke'e ko'i gi lo poi'i g=
e de
> =A0 =A0srana ke'a gi ke'a sanmi kei ku goi ko'o zo'u ko'i vasru ko'o

I haven't tried to decipher that. Is it false if three boys carried
his bag on his head? (The Lojban says exactly two boys did that.)

I agree that the relative clause here could be interpreted so that
only the bags of the two boys who carried their bags on their head are
said to contain their lunch, but I don't think the sentence allows for
three boys to carry their bag on their head.

The ambiguity arises because we don't have a firm rule on whether the
antecedent of "ri" is "ny" or the implicit "da" of "re da poi me ny"


> But having connected sentences share a common prenex does seem often
> useful, e.g. to keep a bound variable alive, and unintuitive only if you
> have the wrong intuition (which I certainly did at first!).

Indeed, both cases are needed sometimes, so inevitably one will get
the short form and the other will need to use a longer form.

To force different preneces you need:

   tu'e su'o da zo'u broda tu'u .i je tu'e su'o da zo'u brode (tu'u)

To force the same prenex, you need:

   su'o da zo'u tu'e broda .i je brode (tu'u)

Giving the short non-tu'e form to the second case, which is the
shortest to start with, and which I think is also the least common,
seems backwards.

>> BTW, how do you analyse "su'o da na broda" and "su'o da na broda gi'e na=
 brode"?
>
> Prop: EX x1. !broda(x1)
> and
> Prop: EX x1. (!broda(x1) /\ !brode(x1))
> respectively.

Good. I was afraid you were a CLL worshipper.

> This current handling does mean we get possibly unintuitive results once
> tailterms are brought in:
>
> da na broda de
> Prop: EX x1. EX x2. !broda(x1,x2)
> jbo: su'o da su'o de zo'u na ku da broda de

For me it's:

Prop: EX x1. !EX x2. broda(x1,x2)
jbo: su'o da na ku su'o de zo'u da broda de

I don't see why you wouldn't have "su'o" within the scope of "na",
given that "na" comes first.

> su'o da na broda gi'e na brode vau de
> Prop: EX x1. EX x2. (!broda(x1,x2) /\ !brode(x1,x2))
> jbo: su'o da su'o de zo'u ge na ku da broda de gi na ku da brode de

For me:

Prop: EX x1. (!EX x2. broda(x1,x2)) /\ (!EX x2 brode(x1,x2))
jbo: su'o da zo'u ge na ku su'o de zo'u da broda de gi na ku su'o de
zo'u da brode de

> The obvious alternative would be to have {na broda} work like {broda be
> na ku},

Isn't that what you are doing though?

> which I think corresponds to what you suggest on the BPFK
> section page, giving us
>
> da broda be na ku de
> Prop: EX x1. !EX x2. broda(x1,x2)
> jbo: su'o da zo'u na ku su'o de zo'u da broda de

I'm confused. How do you get there from "broda be na ku"?

> but
>
> su'o da broda na ku gi'e brode na ku
> Prop: EX x1. !!(broda(x1) /\ brode(x1))
> jbo: su'o da zo'u na ku na ku ge da broda gi da brode

I'm getting lost.

To me that's:

Prop: EX x1. (!broda(x1) /\ !brode(x1))
jbo: su'o da zo'u ge na ku da broda gi na ku da brode

> and
>
> su'o da broda be na ku gi'e brode be na ku
> Prop: EX x1. !!(broda(x1) /\ brode(x1))
> jbo: su'o da zo'u na ku na ku ge da broda gi da brode

I don't know how you get that. I get the same as previous one.

> and
>
> su'o da broda be na ku gi'e brode be na ku vau de
> Prop: EX x1. !EX x2. !(broda(x1,x2) /\ brode(x1,x2))
> jbo: su'o da zo'u na ku su'o de zo'u na ku ge da broda de gi da brode de

I get either:

Prop: EX x1. (EX x2. !broda(x1,x2)) /\ (EX x2. !brode(x1,x2))
jbo: su'o da zo'u ge su'o de na ku zo'u da broda de gi su'o de na ku
zo'u da brode de


> Contrast all that with
>
> su'o da broda na gi'e nai brode vau de
> Prop: EX x1. EX x2. (!broda(x1,x2) /\ !brode(x1,x2))
> jbo: su'o da su'o de zo'u ge na ku da broda de gi na ku da brode de

I get:

Prop: EX x1. (!EX x2. broda(x1,x2)) /\ (!EX x2. brode(x1,x2))
jbo: su'o da zo'u ge na ku su'o de zo'u da broda de gi na ku su'o de
zo'u da brode de

> I'm not sure what the correct behaviour is here (also generally with
> tailterms of connected briditails, even without the negation)

It seems to me that there's no reason for:

  broda gi'e brode vau su'o da

to behave differently than:

  ro de broda su'o da

or than:

  ko'a .e ko'e broda su'o da

or than:

  na ku broda su'o da

In all cases "su'o da" is under the scope of a preceding operator.

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.