Received: from mail-pz0-f56.google.com ([209.85.210.56]:33940)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRC98cX2BBoE1PppCg@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RURqY-0000w8-8c; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 15:40:02 -0800
Received: by pzk6 with SMTP id 6sf1928473pzk.1
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 15:39:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-yahoo-newman-id:x-yahoo-newman-property
         :x-ymail-osg:x-yahoo-smtp:references:in-reply-to
         :x-apple-yahoo-original-message-folder:mime-version:message-id
         :x-mailer:from:x-apple-yahoo-replied-msgid:subject:date: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:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=MsgBuU3dR/U3sqNKz4LJ4SrA4+/HyZA/Om5rgvmDRac=;
        b=bK1lK0N3imli8Hss6H9CbMZLGr8qDQbBtVZ9XabRZ019KAUXo4uEacGnEiT3c5HOPn
         AKxSFf+y1elJAy9+D25V6wqef51LNnbHok0SvC/h7S84AX+29zyi3724mKpDTZgeWVd7
         tGJxWBXes9GXGr1wqa7rjCorPcrtwKjJmpoLs=
Received: by 10.68.44.41 with SMTP id b9mr217686pbm.16.1322350781705;
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 15:39:41 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.68.11.197 with SMTP id s5ls12655178pbb.0.gmail; Sat, 26 Nov
 2011 15:39:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.35.68 with SMTP id f4mr17560993pbj.5.1322350781163;
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 15:39:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.35.68 with SMTP id f4mr17560991pbj.5.1322350781153;
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 15:39:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nm17-vm0.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com (nm17-vm0.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com. [98.139.53.208])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id j5si7887790pbi.0.2011.11.26.15.39.40;
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 15:39:41 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.139.53.208 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.139.53.208;
Received: from [98.139.52.193] by nm17.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Nov 2011 23:39:40 -0000
Received: from [98.139.52.177] by tm6.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Nov 2011 23:39:40 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1060.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Nov 2011 23:39:40 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 389753.28544.bm@omp1060.mail.ac4.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 29663 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2011 23:39:40 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG: Ej2DS48VM1n9d9y_xNdwoC7mOwo72QFhEckstg6mV.laDcV
 XxlSLzr9B4PMRR9aavECPGlEnsGgnknKwVHmd3ACoLPxECJeFy9uixBpunJ7
 ySb66DsxUXueKXlZ0KT1so8M4fCg8Evq5sG33GboRsjk0pNDRr1X5DQ5Q418
 K4fkgFdhb4v669RdaueSXPbARPtDPXlmTEpiUqFWcZy111U_F4KzQBeEYTuJ
 X47AoRyFTwBEU.12IOM9sjbKRACKEI26daPgtdnWEurpKpWr56bUE7PFgU.I
 uQA.UsOU1.mmVcSD7DEH0HlgBxab1DCHgo82I8a8xKaPxHAEfmCtai6ki3Sg
 lfCwFw375wOuAwAtUeOVbonnGWJauThw7.8FpK5TjtlmvFtVmdjzaKEaCp3r
 dPmv1dKIY4_2N0_gFzUDMdrts8NofVTg-
X-Yahoo-SMTP: xvGyF4GswBCIFKGaxf5wSjlg3RF108g-
Received: from [10.0.1.2] (kali9putra@99.92.108.41 with xymcookie)
        by smtp125-mob.biz.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Nov 2011 15:39:39 -0800 PST
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>
In-Reply-To: <20111126182915.GC15113@gonzales>
X-Apple-Yahoo-Original-Message-Folder: AAlojbanery
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8G4)
Message-Id: <0D2E649E-01DD-4DDC-B7E8-0A58E1B9E6B2@yahoo.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8G4)
From: "John E. Clifford" <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
X-Apple-Yahoo-Replied-Msgid: 1_11934128_AHnHjkQAADZnTtEwAQYdhlvkf7o
Subject: Re: [lojban] semantic parser - tersmu-0.1rc1
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 17:40:41 -0600
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.139.53.208
 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@yahoo.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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /



Sent from my iPad

On Nov 26, 2011, at 12:29 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

> * Saturday, 2011-11-26 at 14:35 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmai=
l.com>:
>=20
>> 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".
>=20
> Ah! Maybe this is progress! For my personal understanding of xorlo, that
> is.
>=20
> {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
> 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.
>=20
> Since there's a single intended referent-bunch, {le broda} is invariant
> under passing it through a negation.
>=20
> Obviously it isn't wholly immune to scope, because of the {ro da le
> broda be da} issue.
>=20
> 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.

It is a linguistic precondition of the collapse of parallel sentences marke=
d by {je}.
>=20
> xorlo seems to declare that it is constant in this way - unless I'm
> misunderstanding again? (Just being hopeful...)
>=20
>=20
> 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!

And subtracts the specificity that the in mind provision gives.
>=20
>>> 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
>=20
> 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.
>=20
>> (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 l=
o 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 b=
rode
>>=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.
>=20
> 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}.
>=20
> Martin

--=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@googlegrou=
ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban=
?hl=3Den.