Received: from mail-pz0-f56.google.com ([209.85.210.56]:51905)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCOTEtqyUDhD938T2BBoEUS7SgA@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RUN08-0006zU-Ch; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:29:32 -0800
Received: by pzk6 with SMTP id 6sf1644544pzk.1
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:29:18 -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=N2yTyHb0DjRGptMmKIiHD3mZAua26RPoaAlULOJiq1Y=;
        b=T3TZKpPHVKTjw3m80xk0PM0yYOu/HcIeIe11yoXtq6bsFbDqvg3jtYhT3JpXL4D/eL
         ZjBbon6k6uQvA4+RF9oGXtVV5sKLrJ7XnJ2AbjFyAml4D7T6oFInpeI2rCGnyzqYaPXD
         K/xbLyW0mFDu4OQ0twd6RIERf+DUtCkcW/28Y=
Received: by 10.68.7.65 with SMTP id h1mr1794131pba.18.1322332157045;
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:29:17 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.68.121.5 with SMTP id lg5ls7175405pbb.5.gmail; Sat, 26 Nov
 2011 10:29:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.35.68 with SMTP id f4mr16455692pbj.5.1322332156488;
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:29:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.35.68 with SMTP id f4mr16455690pbj.5.1322332156478;
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:29:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org. [192.94.73.19])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id lj6si4788832pbb.1.2011.11.26.10.29.16
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:29:16 -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 pAQITF0a007167
	for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 18:29:16 GMT
Received: from martin by gonzales.homelinux.org with local (Exim 4.75)
	(envelope-from <mbays@sdf.org>)
	id 1RUMzz-0002gy-LJ
	for lojban@googlegroups.com; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 13:29:15 -0500
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 13:29:15 -0500
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] semantic parser - tersmu-0.1rc1
Message-ID: <20111126182915.GC15113@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>
 <CAO7tK2d9HQKweQJ_RE67GS-+hr=tEL_bzsZgEUfdCavxyOpLXQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="8NvZYKFJsRX2Djef"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2d9HQKweQJ_RE67GS-+hr=tEL_bzsZgEUfdCavxyOpLXQ@mail.gmail.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: -0.0 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /


--8NvZYKFJsRX2Djef
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Saturday, 2011-11-26 at 14:35 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.=
com>:

> On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > 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 can't think of any reason why not, but then I'm not completely
> satisfied that I understand "le".

Ah! Maybe this is progress! For my personal understanding of xorlo, that
is.

{le} to me seems pretty clear: {le broda} refers, wherever it appears,
to some individuals which I have in mind or would have in mind
if I thought about it (to steal pycyn's phrase), and which I hope you
will be able to glork from a mixture of context and them being described
as brodaing.

Whether I actually believe them to broda is beside the point; presumably
I do expect that you believe them to broda, or that you expect me to
expect you to believe them to broda, or etc.

Since there's a single intended referent-bunch, {le broda} is invariant
under passing it through a negation.

Obviously it isn't wholly immune to scope, because of the {ro da le
broda be da} issue.

I don't see why it should be even when the description doesn't
explicitly mention bound variables; e.g. why {ro verba cu prami le
mamta} shouldn't be a reasonable abbreviation of {ro verba cu prami le
mamta be ri}, or why in {pu je ba ku mi'o jinga fi le bradi} we
should have {le bradi} getting the same referents both times.

xorlo seems to declare that it is constant in this way - unless I'm
misunderstanding again? (Just being hopeful...)


Anyway, {lo broda} just adds to {le broda} the side-claim that the
referents *actually* broda, rather than merely that I expect you to
think that they do (or otherwise understand me when I describe them as
brodaing). OK!

> > I don't know about {lo}, but presumably {le broda ku voi brode} is
> > equivalent to {le broda je brode}.
>=20
> Let's see.
>=20
> Assuming
>=20
> (1) le broda =3D zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka broda

I wouldn't want to take that too literally... using {le broda} doesn't
merely claim that I'm describing the referents to you as brodaing, it
actually *does* describe them as brodaing.

> (2) ko'a voi broda =3D ko'a noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka broda
>=20
> Then we have:
>=20
> (3) le broda ku voi brode =3D zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka broda zi'e
> noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka brode
>=20
>  which I'm happy to reduce to:
>=20
> (4) le broda ku voi brode =3D zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka broda .e lo=
 ka brode
>=20
> I'm not so sure about the move to:
>=20
> (5) le broda ku voi brode =3D zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka broda gi'e =
brode
>=20
> and then to:
>=20
> (6) le broda ku voi brode =3D zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka broda je br=
ode
>=20
> which would give us:
>=20
> (7) le broda ku voi brode =3D le broda je brode
>=20
> The move from (4) to (5) is the one I find most suspect. It has to do
> with the semantics of "skicu", and of course also definitions (1) and
> (2) in terms of "skicu" may or may not be right.

Yes, I agree that (4)->(5) is dodgy. But I don't see any corresponding
dodginess in {le broda ku voi brode} -> {le broda je brode}.

Martin

--8NvZYKFJsRX2Djef
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

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

iEYEARECAAYFAk7RL/sACgkQULC7OLX7LNZihACg5CflNxbZn65Xg/tQLSOvDXle
nWoAni+DH1/eAoWD2W1QhbwBCF8yBJAs
=LRjz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--8NvZYKFJsRX2Djef--