Received: from mail-bw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.214.61]:49099)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRDnlsH2BBoEkgq_Rw@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RU7mM-0007W8-9c; Fri, 25 Nov 2011 18:14:17 -0800
Received: by bkat2 with SMTP id t2sf5131356bka.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 25 Nov 2011 18:14:02 -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=1WVHXESYmHKdHQxTEqBZdPIVABhWPwr8EeSaIyOtWOQ=;
        b=kI816FCGozVfXC2jHKRfRj6bJrkts8Hrlz0oY8o11nw0X4KFzXsYJWJK0DZTHKzX5p
         VBaxFc7XjeCX1siXcYLZLVx8/SfQ2+uqkKndcx/OVkqwRx/VV7+vnFFBNeery2gfzBZz
         oIi/kw73Y9v708PeXmS/2Kjgxxvbc6OFN7btU=
Received: by 10.204.154.78 with SMTP id n14mr5151224bkw.31.1322273639986;
        Fri, 25 Nov 2011 18:13:59 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.204.152.154 with SMTP id g26ls1409297bkw.3.gmail; Fri, 25 Nov
 2011 18:13:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.204.0.73 with SMTP id 9mr5493226bka.4.1322273638395;
        Fri, 25 Nov 2011 18:13:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.204.0.73 with SMTP id 9mr5493225bka.4.1322273638374;
        Fri, 25 Nov 2011 18:13:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-fx0-f47.google.com (mail-fx0-f47.google.com [209.85.161.47])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j24si15116011fac.2.2011.11.25.18.13.58
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Fri, 25 Nov 2011 18:13:58 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.47;
Received: by faat2 with SMTP id t2so5381100faa.34
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Fri, 25 Nov 2011 18:13:58 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.106.130 with SMTP id gu2mr22229786lab.37.1322273638219;
 Fri, 25 Nov 2011 18:13:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.152.19.198 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Nov 2011 18:13:58 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20111126012512.GA6702@gonzales>
References: <20111124044118.GF6112@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2cfhJtrvLX1S6Mga_CJU2nLyt96_4DR=ygJksH3ixaamg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20111125195038.GA29512@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2ezxrDKHEDQx1k7O1+E_FsviPXYOK=R8aU3xVy2C4kb6g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20111126012512.GA6702@gonzales>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 23:13:58 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2euHY7snwkb2L68spGHYpX=mAiVXYYjXs0Aws+3=JZdEQ@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 209.85.161.47 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 Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> On second thoughts, I think I agree with your interpretation of the
> english. It should be read as making two claims: firstly that precisely
> two of the boys carried their bags on their heads, and secondly that
> those two bags contained the corresponding lunches.
>
> But I think this reading is only permitted because the quantifier
> effectively picks out a particular group; had it been "two or more of
> the boys carried his bag, which contained his lunch, on his head", we
> wouldn't know for which boys the incidental claim is being made.

If ke'a can pick "the two that ..." it can just as well pick "the two
or more that ..."

The problem cases are no, ro, me'i and any other quantifier compatible
with no, because there may be nothing for the relative clause to be
about. In those cases, the only reasonable choice seems to be the
whole domain of the quantifier, and if that's the case for those, that
may have to be the case for all other quantifiers too.


>> > The obvious alternative would be to have {na broda} work like {broda b=
e
>> > na ku},
>>
>> Isn't that what you are doing though?
>
> No; I currently have bare {na} (and presumably other selbri tags, once
> they're implemented) getting tight scope, within all tail terms, while
> the scope of tag-terms like {na ku} respects the order of terms.

But what do you do when "broda be naku" is a seltau? I think it's
"broda be na ku" that must force tight scope. For bare "na" (and any
other tag) I just follow the general rule of left having scope over
right. Anything within either bridi tail must be within the scope of
"gi'e".

> Relatedly, what do you make (assuming you're not allowed to change the
> official grammar, so there's only one prenex involved) of
> {na ku broda .i je na ku brode}?

ge na ku zo'u broda gi na ku zo'u brode

>> > 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:
>
> (was there meant to be a second disjunct for that "either"?)

Yes, I wasn't sure about "broda be na ku" but then I decided that
since it can be a seltau the negation cannot extend beyond the selbri.
And I forgot to edit.

> Hmm. Do I correctly deduce from all this that your rule is to
> syntactically transform giheks to geks, then interpret those?

Yes, but only after all leading terms have been prenexed.

> That creates new prenices, which is something I've avoided doing.

So your rule is that when a prenex would be allowed by the grammar,
then it is somehow there, even if it's invisible?

In that case, if you do end up transforming "gi'e" into "ge", you have
created a new prenex, whether you want to use it or not.

> I think of giheks as parallel to ijeks.

I think of all logical connectives as variants of geks

> If we want geks, we can always use geks!

You do end up with nothing but geks anyway.

>> =A0 ko'a .e ko'e broda su'o da
>>
>> In all cases "su'o da" is under the scope of a preceding operator.
>
> I certainly agree on the last three. But that's because I have
> quantified/connected terms, and tag-terms, exporting to the closest
> prenex, in order.

How does that work for ".e"? It seems that if you do what I do, you
end up exporting "su'o da" to newly created preneces.

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.