Received: from mail-fx0-f61.google.com ([209.85.161.61]:51326)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRDv68P2BBoExIXVdw@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RUJ8T-0005EK-F0; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 06:21:50 -0800
Received: by faaa25 with SMTP id a25sf753657faa.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 06:21:37 -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=y7H50UjfZucCrK8L+ar5QrvQ3/aBf6gWCVfq/+fqcYU=;
        b=jmYGFXZ71zQC8pXeuCwSu1XQJlBat1dgp3TDqd6o0sT/c7DSJDXYWoBnuB6NbUzob9
         AtaM3a0pKhoZhQEgcs1xC7AHPRz/dpYpuRGvpWfHJ9AVRTYUDJGaJ+wLJM18ZDyxG4Ht
         KiaGH+zWMUqwadYlNm/qNIUSp4sl7cRkhFgMw=
Received: by 10.223.88.130 with SMTP id a2mr893722fam.33.1322317295476;
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 06:21:35 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.223.159.67 with SMTP id i3ls414728fax.1.gmail; Sat, 26 Nov
 2011 06:21:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.204.156.2 with SMTP id u2mr4599753bkw.0.1322317293850;
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 06:21:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.204.156.2 with SMTP id u2mr4599752bkw.0.1322317293831;
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 06:21:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f41.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f41.google.com [209.85.215.41])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 5si141846faf.2.2011.11.26.06.21.33
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 06:21:33 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.41 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.41;
Received: by lamb11 with SMTP id b11so196283lam.0
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 06:21:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.106.130 with SMTP id gu2mr23307220lab.37.1322315570869;
 Sat, 26 Nov 2011 05:52:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.152.19.198 with HTTP; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 05:52:50 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20111126040757.GA17974@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>
	<CAO7tK2euHY7snwkb2L68spGHYpX=mAiVXYYjXs0Aws+3=JZdEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20111126040757.GA17974@gonzales>
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:52:50 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2dJc8y14v8iVZ-3Y7WxW55JJ5-qv4f841aVy=AmxnqJ-w@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 209.85.215.41 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: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> It seems related to donkey anaphora -  consider
> {ro te cange poi ponse su'o xasli noi ke'a xi re darxi cu broda}.

Right, it's the same thing. The grammar allows both ke'a and ri to see
as its antecedent something that in principle it should have no
business seeing as its antecedent, and so we have to cope somehow.

> Also, note that the scope-respecting rules sometimes are the most
> intuitive - e.g. in {ro da prami de noi se prami da}. I'm not sure what
> the scope-breaking rules would make of that; I guess something
> nonsensical.

In principle as nonsensical as "no da prami de noi se prami da".

But what you call scope-respecting rules are the rules for "poi", not "noi"=
.


>> I think it's "broda be na ku" that must force tight scope.
>
> I don't see why.

Mainly because that's what the sytntax suggests. It's when we go
against the syntax that we end up with problem cases.


> But in {broda da gi'e brode da}, the first {da} is to the left of the
> {gi'e}. So why shouldn't the {gi'e} be in the scope of the {[su'o] da}?

Because "gi'e" connects two bridi-tails, and so each bridi-tail is
subordinate to it. It's for the same reason that in "na broda gi'e na
brode" the first "na" is in the scope of "gi'e" and not the other way
around.

> So do you also have {da broda .i je da brode} -> {ge da broda gi da
> brode}? If so: that's clearly contrary to CLL (and much usage).

Yes, as I said, that's what I would have. I find the CLL rule somewhat stra=
nge.

>> >> =A0 ko'a .e ko'e broda su'o da
>>
>> 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.
>
> In a sense, yes; e.g.
>
> da ko'a .e ko'e de broda
> Prop: EX x1. (EX x2. broda(x1,ko'a,x2) /\ EX x2. broda(x1,ko'e,x2))
>
> ; but I think of this as exporting the connective to the prenex, and
> then the inner existential to that same prenex within the scope of the
> connective.

Same with "gi'e".

Presumably in "su'o da .e su'o de" you have the first "su'o" within
the scope of ".e", yes?

> Basically: when parsing, we always have a notion of 'current prenex',
> which corresponds to the closest instance of 'statement' or
> 'subsentence' we're below. All sumti connectives, termset connectives,
> quantifiers and tagged terms (currently just {naku}) export to that
> prenex, in order.

Yes, but I'm just parsing gi'e, na and selbri tags before tail terms
rather than leaving them for last. That's what the syntax suggests,
and I just don't see the advantage of doing otherwise.

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.