Received: from mail-pz0-f56.google.com ([209.85.210.56]:56762)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCOTEtqyUDhCXvcX2BBoE-KLFyw@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RUQ6a-0007fy-1N; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 13:48:24 -0800
Received: by pzk6 with SMTP id 6sf1801867pzk.1
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 13:48:10 -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=CCzPfu4ieq396WUZr1rilqGgPiuHcapY0W+QCY5Z1m4=;
        b=QortC0TjtSnJ4GHy6WNsyU2LcO2MmJ1D5z7WZ652vOah/WNW9nFWhLCvXaCyCgXSEV
         wyLL1iqPTSKdABRu+ESTQAb7l5jdo7AbBPKJa9GIZBoJI6h5YBVyHF+g9lnjkPt2qu66
         GcBJxfFqu59ssWCsWMUGHGhREruVcZikxJJHU=
Received: by 10.68.25.232 with SMTP id f8mr1885305pbg.2.1322344087527;
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 13:48:07 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.68.42.101 with SMTP id n5ls5222687pbl.6.gmail; Sat, 26 Nov
 2011 13:48:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.15.41 with SMTP id u9mr17172708pbc.3.1322344086983;
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 13:48:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.15.41 with SMTP id u9mr17172707pbc.3.1322344086970;
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 13:48:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org. [192.94.73.19])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j5si7613407pbi.0.2011.11.26.13.48.06
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 13:48:06 -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 pAQLm6e9023883
	for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 21:48:06 GMT
Received: from martin by gonzales.homelinux.org with local (Exim 4.75)
	(envelope-from <mbays@sdf.org>)
	id 1RUQ6Q-0007jq-3k
	for lojban@googlegroups.com; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 16:48:06 -0500
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 16:48:06 -0500
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] semantic parser - tersmu-0.1rc1
Message-ID: <20111126214806.GB19833@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>
 <CAO7tK2fSavtz6QA1dJB0Nh7ZWC9_ucLMWdkC4Kzk2aQK9xpVrQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Y7xTucakfITjPcLV"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2fSavtz6QA1dJB0Nh7ZWC9_ucLMWdkC4Kzk2aQK9xpVrQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key: http://mbays.freeshell.org/pubkey.asc
X-PGP-KeyId: B5FB2CD6
X-cunselcu'a-valsi: vibna
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: /


--Y7xTucakfITjPcLV
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Saturday, 2011-11-26 at 16:05 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.=
com>:

> 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.
>=20
> 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.

I might, I might not. I suspect that would require a painful extended
email discussion to sort out.

> > 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...)
>=20
> I could say:
>=20
>  lo bradi noi ke'a du ma kau cu ro roi se jinga mi'o
>  Enemies, whovever they be, are always defeated by us.

Yes, I know you prefer to use constant kinds in these situations, but
would you *allow* temporally varying interpretations of {lo bradi} in
{ro roi mi'o jinga fi lo bradi}?

And if I say 'please'?

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

Nor do I, currently. It would probably depend on how these entities are
implemented.

> > 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!
>=20
> Yes. If I say:
>=20
> "(ju'a/pe'i/.a'o/.ei/xu/...) lo broda cu brode"
>=20
> 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.)

So I see you really do mean a presupposition in the sense the term is
used in pragmatics. OK.

There's still the question of what presuppositions are being made when
the {lo} appears within a quantifier. But maybe that isn't so obscure.
If we treat our generalised quantifiers in the obvious naive way, saying
that in {PA da poi broda zo'u lo brode be da cu brodi} the prenexed
clause is interpreted once for each {da} in the extension of broda and
then the resulting set of truth values is checked against the semantics
of PA, then we precisely need that {lo brode be da} has a referent for
each such da, so we need the presupposition to hold for each such da.

So in other words, we have a presupposition for each "occurrence" of
{lo}, and we consider quantifiers to induce a (often infinite) family of
such occurrences.

Sound right?

Martin

--Y7xTucakfITjPcLV
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

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

iEYEARECAAYFAk7RXpYACgkQULC7OLX7LNYuxgCgjg1OZYGcpT2pQxcEq6/FJ28q
XA8AniCZ/omtgkLS19RssGaoTyO9gB5n
=FR8h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Y7xTucakfITjPcLV--