Received: from mail-pz0-f56.google.com ([209.85.210.56]:54631)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCOTEtqyUDhC80MT2BBoEh4-7aQ@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RUMU9-0006sH-2B; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 09:56:29 -0800
Received: by pzk6 with SMTP id 6sf1621042pzk.1
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 09:56:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references
         :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:x-pgp-key
         :x-pgp-keyid:x-cunselcu'a-valsi:user-agent: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;
        bh=smkg5Skmrn1KV2idp7V94tlsD73v6MzYY7z9wf1u2oc=;
        b=f/D5otgEJqakBuDvbhAuOjmI3fbU1smX5VRp2SR5oTy1LnboacMvOvnNW6PWhll8fO
         CO1SYsFnF+eWQ6LgnK83M1exV2gNX+FMp9n4260WSRNq3DOlTMIjrA/GLwbEink7rnf6
         jbRUUCR2PQdCqLr9FTeHnHXQ1WF4DKOTmI6u0=
Received: by 10.68.32.138 with SMTP id j10mr1764073pbi.17.1322330172541;
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 09:56:12 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.68.74.199 with SMTP id w7ls4773059pbv.7.gmail; Sat, 26 Nov
 2011 09:56:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.15.41 with SMTP id u9mr16332782pbc.3.1322330171790;
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 09:56:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.15.41 with SMTP id u9mr16332780pbc.3.1322330171778;
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 09:56:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org. [192.94.73.19])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j5si7022501pbi.0.2011.11.26.09.56.11
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 09:56:11 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of mbays@sdf.org designates 192.94.73.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=192.94.73.19;
Received: from gonzales.homelinux.org (root@sverige.freeshell.org [192.94.73.4])
	by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pAQHuBJT013711
	for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 17:56:11 GMT
Received: from martin by gonzales.homelinux.org with local (Exim 4.75)
	(envelope-from <mbays@sdf.org>)
	id 1RUMTy-0000aY-Rz
	for lojban@googlegroups.com; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 12:56:10 -0500
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 12:56:10 -0500
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] semantic parser - tersmu-0.1rc1
Message-ID: <20111126175610.GB15113@gonzales>
References: <20111124044118.GF6112@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2cfhJtrvLX1S6Mga_CJU2nLyt96_4DR=ygJksH3ixaamg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20111126112901.GA27177@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2eVfy5iEv4Qy5HWhhVu+ATV3nzUJS=yqKR-tR3Tp6vG6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20111126154114.GC27177@gonzales>
 <1322328772.59139.YahooMailRC@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="EuxKj2iCbKjpUGkD"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1322328772.59139.YahooMailRC@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
X-PGP-Key: http://mbays.freeshell.org/pubkey.asc
X-PGP-KeyId: B5FB2CD6
X-cunselcu'a-valsi: fancu
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Original-Sender: mbays@sdf.org
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 best guess record for domain of mbays@sdf.org designates 192.94.73.19 as
 permitted sender) smtp.mail=mbays@sdf.org
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>
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /


--EuxKj2iCbKjpUGkD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Saturday, 2011-11-26 at 09:32 -0800 - John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.c=
om>:

> I can't (with a straight face) claim to have followed this discussion, bu=
t I=20
> offer this tidbit about relative clauses.  A restrictive relative clause=
=20
> attaches to a description *and are part of that description*.  That is, f=
or=20
> Lojban, {lo broda (ku?) poi brode} is just {lo broda Ce brode} ( I can ne=
ver=20
> keep all the various versions of the logical connectives straight, nor be=
 sure=20
> what is meant to be connected here, predicates or bridi tails or somethin=
g else=20
> altogether).  Consequently, it is unaffected by various operators within =
whose=20
> scope it lies, just like the predicate inside the official description.

But sometimes the predicate inside the description is affected by, or
rather is constrained by, scope - e.g. {ro da lo broda be da cu brode}.

> This latter is true also of non-restrictive relative clauses, but they
> are simply separate sentences: {lo proda noi brode cu brodi} is {lo
> broda cu brodi .ije lo broda cu brode}.

But what about {ro da noi brode cu brodi}? And {na ku ro da noi brode cu
brodi}?

> I am not sure about {voi}, but whichever, it is independent of the
> operators within whose scope it lies.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
> To: lojban@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Sat, November 26, 2011 9:41:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [lojban] semantic parser - tersmu-0.1rc1
>=20
> * Saturday, 2011-11-26 at 11:02 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmai=
l.com>:
>=20
> > On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > {noi broda} is veridicial - it affects the truth conditions of the
> > > claim, so it can't be scope-invariant.
> > >
> > > {voi broda} is non-veridicial - it doesn't affect the truth condition=
s,
> > > so is scope-invariant. It just gives hints to help the listener
> > > understand the intended referents of the sumti it's attached to, by
> > > noting that they satisfy broda (or appear to satisfy broda, this being
> > > all that's relevant).
> >=20
> > The veridicality of "noi" means that the subordinate clause is a
> > veridical claim about its subject, it has nothing to do with how it
> > affects (or rather doesn't affect) the truth of the main clause. The
> > non-restrictiveness of "noi" is what makes it independent of the main
> > clause.
>=20
> Hmm. I wonder if I now finally understand part of xorlo: would you say
> that {lo broda} is equivalent, under this side-clause interpretation of
> {noi} you've just set out, to {le broda noi broda}?
>=20
> I never understood how it could be veridical, and spelt {lo} rather than
> {le}, and yet be invariant under negation scope. This would explain it.
>=20
> > I can't comment on "voi" since we don't really know whether it's
> > supposed to be restrictive or non-restrictive. It could very well be
> > both non-veridical and restrictive: "the woman that I described as a
> > man" vs "the woman, who I described as a man". I'm not sure which one
> > of those "lo ninmu voi nanmu" is supposed to be.
>=20
> I don't know about {lo}, but presumably {le broda ku voi brode} is
> equivalent to {le broda je brode}.
>=20
> To me that suggests that {ko'a voi broda} be not exactly restrictive,
> but rather something like "disambiguatingly incidental". It describes
> ko'a as satisfying broda, with the intention that this makes clearer the
> intended referents of {ko'a}. So {ro da voi nanmu cu broda} is highly
> unhelpful, as it describes everything as being a man, but isn't actually
> false unless something doesn't broda.
>=20
> This looks like a useful role for it, whether or not it was the
> originally intended one, no?
>=20
> Martin
>=20
> --=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@googlegr=
oups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojb=
an?hl=3Den.
>=20

--EuxKj2iCbKjpUGkD
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk7RKDoACgkQULC7OLX7LNb9RQCfR2dBV94bezAP3vsR627gFXKr
erAAoJOk11t7Mf4372HuM/uWv2TkUAqC
=8Axr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--EuxKj2iCbKjpUGkD--