Received: from mail-bw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.214.61]:55422)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRDK88T2BBoEyerH4A@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RUNee-00079i-Rq; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 11:11:23 -0800
Received: by bkat2 with SMTP id t2sf5782037bka.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 11:11:08 -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=3LV+/VW7p/fCRK/dkQg6PYaeiCMVhWv84bP7SyccZqs=;
        b=o/fpX6uzsjVEMlYAX0BWqroT/FM+xrhHdytRQbF3cD88+v/mlTx4JZv3tf1cxYf79Y
         FELZmVWmGVQ39Ai/gnqSLuH2vf6APh/Yf6Zy7GKOmaC106GnA3MPu85I4z1WbNm0xMLL
         uWvouqQ9B6WVJVJ1f/AgaCdgPOxZyHXoxSR/8=
Received: by 10.205.130.148 with SMTP id hm20mr3858560bkc.1.1322334666175;
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 11:11:06 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.204.152.154 with SMTP id g26ls4558206bkw.3.gmail; Sat, 26 Nov
 2011 11:11:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.205.133.193 with SMTP id hz1mr533518bkc.7.1322334664603;
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 11:11:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.205.133.193 with SMTP id hz1mr533517bkc.7.1322334664588;
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 11:11:04 -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 y2si4471926fak.0.2011.11.26.11.11.04
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 11:11:04 -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 b11so192154lam.28
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 11:11:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.113.101 with SMTP id ix5mr23519053lab.23.1322334303655;
 Sat, 26 Nov 2011 11:05:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.152.19.198 with HTTP; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 11:05:03 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <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>
	<20111126182915.GC15113@gonzales>
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 16:05:03 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2fSavtz6QA1dJB0Nh7ZWC9_ucLMWdkC4Kzk2aQK9xpVrQ@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
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> {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.

Sounds reasonable, although you might object to some individuals I
could have in mind and which you would claim to be non-mundane and
thus not acceptable candidates for in-mindness.

> 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...)

I could say:

 lo bradi noi ke'a du ma kau cu ro roi se jinga mi'o
 Enemies, whovever they be, are always defeated by us.

I don't know if that falls within "have in mind or would have in mind
if I thought about it" for you.

> 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!

Yes. If I say:

"(ju'a/pe'i/.a'o/.ei/xu/...) lo broda cu brode"

the "side claim" or presupposition, is unaffected by the
ju'a/pe'i/.a'o/.ei/xu/... This attitudinal is only concernned with the
main proposition. The side claim is presupposed, not asserted,
questioned, etc. (It could be asserted, questioned, etc, but
independently of the main proposition.)

>> Assuming
>>
>> (1) le broda = 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.

Right, but then the incidental clause is not a claim either, at least
not at the same level as the main clause. It may be that "noi" is not
far removed enough to work as an exact definition though.

>> (4) le broda ku voi brode = zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka broda .e lo ka brode
>>
>> I'm not so sure about the move to:
>>
>> (5) le broda ku voi brode = zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka broda gi'e brode
>>
>> 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}.

It seems to depend a lot on understanding "le" and "voi", which we
don't seem to be able to pin down other than through hand waving.

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.