Received: from mail-pz0-f56.google.com ([209.85.210.56]:54071)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCOTEtqyUDhCptcb2BBoE-SJwRA@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RUU6c-0001yC-FC; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 18:04:43 -0800
Received: by pzk6 with SMTP id 6sf2017698pzk.1
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 18:04:28 -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=dlcFPizBY1xDHq14i/7tDX5ZcOkMLZmySCD0ZjdGWVg=;
        b=nT/YOnH1BATD/ILbvgAKzk4yqGKYgx5r1Y+ML2F52dSk2/QA9BVv2mug6jnN2/+mkP
         S/eZv5q5UaetuwA/cJuV3GgffjHHr074HV1BL48zv2n6DoEhMjiCW4UFy9VgOxTg800b
         c2VXvNC30vdh3jJkcnrERKRwWycICqrjbbG0c=
Received: by 10.68.54.200 with SMTP id l8mr670529pbp.7.1322359465890;
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 18:04:25 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.68.42.101 with SMTP id n5ls5680408pbl.6.gmail; Sat, 26 Nov
 2011 18:04:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.15.41 with SMTP id u9mr18034735pbc.3.1322359465271;
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 18:04:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.15.41 with SMTP id u9mr18034734pbc.3.1322359465261;
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 18:04:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org. [192.94.73.19])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u7si10524703pbn.2.2011.11.26.18.04.25
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 18:04:25 -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 pAR24OId027325
	for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sun, 27 Nov 2011 02:04:24 GMT
Received: from martin by gonzales.homelinux.org with local (Exim 4.75)
	(envelope-from <mbays@sdf.org>)
	id 1RUU6S-0007Ny-90
	for lojban@googlegroups.com; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 21:04:24 -0500
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 21:04:24 -0500
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] semantic parser - tersmu-0.1rc1
Message-ID: <20111127020424.GG19833@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>
 <0D2E649E-01DD-4DDC-B7E8-0A58E1B9E6B2@yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Cp3Cp8fzgozWLBWL"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0D2E649E-01DD-4DDC-B7E8-0A58E1B9E6B2@yahoo.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: -0.0 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /


--Cp3Cp8fzgozWLBWL
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Saturday, 2011-11-26 at 17:40 -0600 - John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.=
com>:

> On Nov 26, 2011, at 12:29 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>=20
> > * Saturday, 2011-11-26 at 14:35 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gm=
ail.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.
>=20
> It is a linguistic precondition of the collapse of parallel sentences
> marked by {je}.

I suppose it just seems odd to me that we don't allow the unfilled x2 of
mamta in {ro da poi verba cu prami le mamta} to refer to da.

> > 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!
>=20
> And subtracts the specificity that the in mind provision gives.

It does? How can it be non-specific and yet not involve quantification?

--Cp3Cp8fzgozWLBWL
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

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

iEYEARECAAYFAk7RmqgACgkQULC7OLX7LNYeRACgoDQq7SkL9fNRxnPs+KeTNRN3
CQMAoKXqGUdwJlz/GSg3cd33mZSPz13u
=lS5X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Cp3Cp8fzgozWLBWL--