Received: from mail-vw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]:38230)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRCehsf2BBoEtl9okw@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RUWng-0002u3-08; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 20:57:22 -0800
Received: by vbbfs19 with SMTP id fs19sf4574419vbb.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 20:57:05 -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=Ves7uPi9atJ6uL7l0BhQumJ87L7MuHb7s4AoHBYKwFg=;
        b=xFLiVOm56/H2WKdECsjh259Z2peB2DgF0PMsqDBQRIqaBbDfe0fnezBAZhRmCGDa/n
         9hvwPXc+bNEkrGT3TPsZMnkqLKblip+1q92Rww6SEi0V95Vb6NuEodyLwz+To9YG3NmF
         KgutBfyVrmkluX0rkzQ/USu7KZWo+Y5OTLqk8=
Received: by 10.52.116.236 with SMTP id jz12mr532998vdb.11.1322369822849;
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 20:57:02 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.220.8.196 with SMTP id i4ls1392057vci.0.canary; Sat, 26 Nov
 2011 20:57:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.52.67.145 with SMTP id n17mr27690617vdt.0.1322369822131;
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 20:57:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.52.67.145 with SMTP id n17mr27690614vdt.0.1322369822123;
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 20:57:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nm15-vm0.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm15-vm0.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com. [98.139.212.254])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id bu17si13821761vdc.0.2011.11.26.20.57.01;
        Sat, 26 Nov 2011 20:57:02 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.139.212.254 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.139.212.254;
Received: from [98.139.212.151] by nm15.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Nov 2011 04:57:01 -0000
Received: from [98.139.212.233] by tm8.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Nov 2011 04:57:01 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1042.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Nov 2011 04:57:01 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 667124.76370.bm@omp1042.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 88233 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2011 04:57:01 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG: UV1Z1_EVM1kTfSFu1MEwHcspepFefksHuBUKjSBJcmXd77Q
 B9J_8h2vGADo8x0wz.FEWd6AZR40FzeFVODHxztXJWICqZ99QDZ4cs0NmLhe
 IjyJjdIiKsKTfaPOdbSIqdd1F3sCmc36S0zbzKUsjKrjsXkmFpJXPX2zJx8Z
 muhO3IsXq1AslxF4rI0LK13R6_b1xz3zhz8XejgtopMhpohrhGgUy_ePE0YY
 2YsEJqihciPVUre3m4L4P09BK1K8Cr4thx4KAUF5XMxaf61aGoEaq9.6EMZ2
 R5jioNSPaEMaXwnDL.RcE7Bdy6.sFmO2z5QWA2xP3KCbsKO0kbGm11k2wBnx
 wOltNoWnqpwuIxfUIFjpbOKKk_4JYEd8f0VkRLxvKlgB6Te4_jbBeFIazsY1
 xQC.ZlqHOFcavEA--
X-Yahoo-SMTP: xvGyF4GswBCIFKGaxf5wSjlg3RF108g-
Received: from [10.0.1.2] (kali9putra@99.92.108.41 with xymcookie)
        by smtp101-mob.biz.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Nov 2011 20:57:01 -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> <0D2E649E-01DD-4DDC-B7E8-0A58E1B9E6B2@yahoo.com> <20111127020424.GG19833@gonzales>
In-Reply-To: <20111127020424.GG19833@gonzales>
X-Apple-Yahoo-Original-Message-Folder: AAlojbanery
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8G4)
Message-Id: <2411BD3B-83CC-4820-99F0-1ED60D42989F@yahoo.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8G4)
From: "John E. Clifford" <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
X-Apple-Yahoo-Replied-Msgid: 1_11949164_AHXHjkQAAUjaTtGasALT4G+3gR0
Subject: Re: [lojban] semantic parser - tersmu-0.1rc1
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 22:58:03 -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
 98.139.212.254 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 8:04 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

> * Saturday, 2011-11-26 at 17:40 -0600 - John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yaho=
o.com>:
>=20
>> 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 sa=
y
>>>>> 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, tha=
t
>>> 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 describe=
d
>>> as brodaing.
>>>=20
>>> Whether I actually believe them to broda is beside the point; presumabl=
y
>>> 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}.
>=20
> 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.

I would assume that (by a different process) the unfilled place their will =
be taken to be {da}.  But just what the process that gets to that is is unc=
lear (surely, the {le} helps-- a clue from Basque again).
>=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!
>>=20
>> And subtracts the specificity that the in mind provision gives.
>=20
> It does? How can it be non-specific and yet not involve quantification?

I suppose all quantifiers are by nature non-specific, but the converse does=
n't hold.  The lions, who are mucking in my garden, are not very specific l=
ions; I know them by their deeds, not as individuals or even as a herd.  I =
don't, as the story has developed, even know how many they are or whether t=
hey are the same each night.  I would presumably know these things about le=
 cinfo.

--=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.