Received: from mail-bw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.214.61]:58905)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRD63sT2BBoEDj0E2Q@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RUMy4-0006y7-Be; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:27:22 -0800
Received: by bkat2 with SMTP id t2sf5735143bka.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:27:08 -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;
        bh=A67xFpvtfRWooThgTPD96PXWL2aqSvt1JPg2Z6++ic0=;
        b=jvvwicWeJ02far1MPZxuV7tu6LCpBOrwor627hZ4gbm3SzRVxPCGLwb5aQ+WoQSJsl
         w9E5EiEKqVbvO9/oUH4pP+5ZJ4CJKQNWRpqnKL7zZEmobWazVMqqxk69J+IdSVhGYqWZ
         8F8OPdH5HivFKrnWOgNbCmTG2MHiksL+h83QU=
Received: by 10.205.122.71 with SMTP id gf7mr5550368bkc.20.1322332026133;
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:27:06 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.204.56.81 with SMTP id x17ls4366155bkg.1.gmail; Sat, 26 Nov
 2011 10:27:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.204.156.2 with SMTP id u2mr4694136bkw.0.1322332024726;
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:27:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.204.156.2 with SMTP id u2mr4694135bkw.0.1322332024710;
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:27:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f49.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f49.google.com [209.85.215.49])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 5si422048faf.2.2011.11.26.10.27.04
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:27:04 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.49 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.49;
Received: by lagu2 with SMTP id u2so205914lag.8
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:27:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.102.148 with SMTP id fo20mr23376374lab.51.1322332024221;
 Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:27:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.152.19.198 with HTTP; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:27:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20111126171419.GA15113@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>
	<CAO7tK2dJc8y14v8iVZ-3Y7WxW55JJ5-qv4f841aVy=AmxnqJ-w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20111126150912.GB27177@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2cMYxgWMJWCLL0_WdH25h3nzKDrh9BAKV3_2RQSf2VqFw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20111126171419.GA15113@gonzales>
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 15:27:04 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2faJ7SNcepEYg9dXaj7ZNrmH-1Gf6KA=d9O_xLwSu9fAQ@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 209.85.215.49 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
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> (would you agree that "guhek selbri-3 gik selbri-6" is a more sensible
> grammar of guheks than the official one, by the way? I spent some time
> trying to make sense of the official "guhek selbri gik selbri-6", but
> failed - mostly because of the weird interactions with {co})

I think connectives should allow the same things for both connectands,
so I'm unhappy with  both "guhek selbri gik selbri-6" and
"gek sumti gik sumti-4".

I haven't thought about it enough to have an opinion on what level
they should connect, other than that it should be the same on both
sides.

> I actually was, until I changed it a few days ago, handling selbri3
> after tailterms. What made me change was {broda be da brode ro da} - it
> seems counterintuitive to have the first {da} in the scope of the
> second, which is what I seemed to be forced to do when handling
> tailterms first.
>
> Do you see another way to avoid that? Or do you consider it correct?

I still don't know how you handle tanru, but it seems to me that
"broda be da brode" should be handled like "brodi be da", where the
exact derivation of "brodi" from "broda" and "brode" is probably
undefinable.

As for "brodi be da ro da", I suppose the first "da" has to be bound
by "ro", but I'm willing to reconsider.

> But I'm afraid I do intend to let conservatism take priority in
> this case, at least for now.

Is there any indication that CLL gives giheks tighter scope than
tail-terms? (I don't remember either way.)

>> You can use "na'e (ke)" instead of "na" to get your meaning easily,
>
> You have {na'e} giving logical negation?

What's the alternative?

>> With your gi'e-rule, my na-rule makes little sense. We both agree that
>> na is subordinate to gi'e, so if gi'e has tight scope, na must too.
>
> Hold on. I understand your gi'e rule as giving e.g.
> na broda gi'e na brode da
> -> ge na broda da gi na brode da ,

Did you leave out a "vau"?
I have:

na broda gi'e na brode su'o da
-> ge na ku zo'u broda gi na ku zo'u su'o da zo'u brode da

na broda gi'e na brode vau su'o da
-> ge na ku zo'u su'o da zo'u na broda da gi na ku zo'u su'o da zo'u brode da

> so there's still the issue of whether those {na}s scope over the {da}s.

If you have "su'o da" with scope over "gi'e", there is no doubt that
it will also have scope over "na".

>> It's clear that one rule will allow some things being shorter, and
>> another rule will allow other things being shorter. I don't think a
>> single example with no semantic content will be convincing either way.
>
> Sure. But note that I can get your rule by replacing the {na} with
> a {na ku} after the selbri, so just one syllable extra. Going the other
> way seems harder in some cases - e.g. the example I just gave.

I don't follow this particular example, but in general yes, although
your argument would be better if you use say "ka'e" rather than "na",
because we do have "na'e" for tight scope negation.

>> > Another argument would involve your agreeing with me that
>> >
>> > broda je brode da
>> > Prop: EX x1. (broda( ,x1) /\ brode( ,x1))
>> >
>> > is correct... do you?
>>
>> I agree it's EX x1 brodi(x1), and what you offer for brodi is probably
>> the obvious choice. But tanru are weird, so I won't commit to it. In
>> any case, I suppose you don't need the exact form of "brodi" for your
>> argument, but I don't consider na and tag to be part of the tanru, so
>> selbri attached "na" is different from tanru-making "je".
>
> Hmm. Why do you call this a tanru? The relevant grammar for
> selbri connection is selbri-4 through selbri-6. It's true that the usual
> use (and the only documented use, to my knowledge) of selbri connection
> is in a seltau, but I don't see why we should consider the connectives
> themselves as anything more complicated than boolean operators.

You're probably right. We just don't have a clear rule on what the
place structure of "broda je brode" is wrt the place structures of
broda and brode.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
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@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.