Received: from mail-gy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189]:41596)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRDRrMn2BBoEgKd1tg@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RUgnV-00080n-5e; Sun, 27 Nov 2011 07:37:53 -0800
Received: by ghrr15 with SMTP id r15sf4525520ghr.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 27 Nov 2011 07:37:34 -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-property:x-yahoo-newman-id
         :x-ymail-osg:x-mailer:references:message-id:date:from:subject:to
         :in-reply-to:mime-version: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=drZ6wVj2+PY03WOA/Kzq6TSdy/aBdj/Xut9jLhXCr3o=;
        b=mt7vsOeGrUDe+Ti9hDIs0gcZpE0szS82euiMkM0hJM59XkeOxQlyjOJTPkV08XmnpP
         t2DInyDMC+aI5d7TqcoPXubxWGIAqVgz+c861HrDmdJwBc5u3TG8qJpv3Zv3jzuAcauJ
         WaN4Pc55udcpPwzVEba5WjMeexBVmy/Ul6rGE=
Received: by 10.236.174.4 with SMTP id w4mr4375660yhl.10.1322407505145;
        Sun, 27 Nov 2011 07:25:05 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.100.74.17 with SMTP id w17ls17652272ana.1.gmail; Sun, 27 Nov
 2011 07:25:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.101.73.11 with SMTP id a11mr11807773anl.26.1322407504557;
        Sun, 27 Nov 2011 07:25:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.101.73.11 with SMTP id a11mr11807772anl.26.1322407504522;
        Sun, 27 Nov 2011 07:25:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nm8-vm1.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm8-vm1.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com. [66.94.237.248])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id r27si882662yhm.4.2011.11.27.07.25.03;
        Sun, 27 Nov 2011 07:25:04 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.237.248 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.237.248;
Received: from [66.94.237.196] by nm8.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Nov 2011 15:25:03 -0000
Received: from [66.94.237.120] by tm7.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Nov 2011 15:25:03 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1025.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Nov 2011 15:25:03 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-5
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 449678.78617.bm@omp1025.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 72966 invoked by uid 60001); 27 Nov 2011 15:25:03 -0000
X-YMail-OSG: PcSr2L0VM1mXFimSKAIxyEjb1jNx5aqqLxdfn06czR.hi6h
 FFvwOvUrl44abQIVq0oWQfxzZfutRomEUTi6BOFLpuE2czn.jsekUJ5aaNbn
 kLZAQQ4nrqopofIGdv8QDwPl7EEDesCYYiWlWeBIQB05n4yy3sgPOJcXLwuS
 P7K5IUA9dn48_zxuPDqEq1fUptp..urtIZ8TYC6xTGlKSqIA2wnTbEU.DU3f
 iiw3OuQmyDMwDXnUyfw_2uQMiWEEv55TgRFJfYQvjnH1oVn7mqEefXME_shP
 dY0i.lCtS7J.HjWhT4Lkt6h.O3JM3h4xlijhJAwxqkcdCsO4EH9SjPxzjwDX
 MZID6Je_UwHYhSolw.YIItDJ3BcwedfqyB58YR3Xk1fTTU5mBDQFFmo6NPrl
 ZjTK1z2aiV1li1OONEM_5WI97dUA8VbtQi9NZTtU6KUDUGH.ARkE.WKexZw0
 yD7t.js6JDKvk
Received: from [99.92.108.41] by web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 27 Nov 2011 07:25:03 PST
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/589 YahooMailWebService/0.8.115.325013
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> <2411BD3B-83CC-4820-99F0-1ED60D42989F@yahoo.com> <20111127141551.GB3125@gonzales>
Message-ID: <1322407503.64700.YahooMailRC@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 07:25:03 -0800 (PST)
From: John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] semantic parser - tersmu-0.1rc1
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
In-Reply-To: <20111127141551.GB3125@gonzales>
MIME-Version: 1.0
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 66.94.237.248
 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
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /





----- Original Message ----
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, November 27, 2011 8:15:51 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] semantic parser - tersmu-0.1rc1

* Saturday, 2011-11-26 at 22:58 -0600 - John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:

> 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@yahoo.com>:
> >> On Nov 26, 2011, at 12:29 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >> 
> >> 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.
> 
> I would assume that (by a different process) the unfilled place their
> will be taken to be {da}.

But if it is, {le mamta} isn't constant with respect to {da}, as xorlo
(and, I thought, you) claim it must be.

Or you mean that this "different process" could be just contextual
guessing - {le mamta} is interpreted as a constant, presumably as the
constant bunch consisting of all mothers (or maybe of the kind Mother,
if that's different), but the reader reads more into the resulting prami
claims than is actually stated?

I'm not sure whar you mean by "constant with respect to {da}".  The given 
occurrence of {le mamta} is within the scope of a universal quantifier on {da}, 
so, on one reasonable interpretation, its reference varies with the variation on 
the instantiations of {da}, i.e. it is a function.  There are other 
interpretations possible, for example, that {le mamta} refers to someone that 
all regard as mother (but who may, in fact, be male, etc.) or it might refer to 
my mother.  I find the reference to Mother unlikely, though possible, if course. 
The reference to a bunch of more than one member also seems unlikely without 
further context (a governing body of women, say).  


> But just what the process that gets to that is is unclear (surely, the
> {le} helps-- a clue from Basque again).
> > 
> >>> xorlo seems to declare that it is constant in this way - unless I'm
> >>> misunderstanding again? (Just being hopeful...)
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 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.
> > 
> > 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
> doesn't hold.  The lions, who are mucking in my garden, are not very
> specific lions; 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 they are the same each night.  I would presumably
> know these things about le cinfo.

OK. That's still specific in the sense I have been understanding the
term (and I would feel free to use {le} in such a case).

I always have trouble with just what "specific" means, so my example may be 
ill-chosen.  Hoe about the direct Lojban version of "The lions are restless 
tonight"?

-- 
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.