Received: from mail-pz0-f56.google.com ([209.85.210.56]:61683)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCOTEtqyUDhC61Mn2BBoE6HRHFQ@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RUhvf-0008SR-Bz; Sun, 27 Nov 2011 08:50:19 -0800
Received: by pzk6 with SMTP id 6sf2878916pzk.1
        for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 27 Nov 2011 08:50:05 -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=NZuLH2eQmZ7VwlKKWQtS2T9HbUTx5NgYNfFYm4XSByE=;
        b=kBWOYbs+fW5XQjbgZgn2p9mTNPtdhcMQlziIRqeap0qr2ZhQMpMU8dlDA6C4lE16B5
         fN5eqcYV7uu4Z2KU3Xx4TLIOfghsgRiip6IovVTO7xAAi5ZSGfu/N5PHvF87h22ZACsd
         WZGVBf0YXt9Iq1MqdBKZwf5SkGYyZqJQv6xgs=
Received: by 10.68.38.166 with SMTP id h6mr2415508pbk.14.1322412602979;
        Sun, 27 Nov 2011 08:50:02 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.68.14.101 with SMTP id o5ls10040472pbc.4.gmail; Sun, 27 Nov
 2011 08:50:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.15.41 with SMTP id u9mr21113067pbc.3.1322412602316;
        Sun, 27 Nov 2011 08:50:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.15.41 with SMTP id u9mr21113065pbc.3.1322412602308;
        Sun, 27 Nov 2011 08:50:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org. [192.94.73.19])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j5si10531546pbi.0.2011.11.27.08.50.02
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sun, 27 Nov 2011 08:50:02 -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 pARGo1en008036
	for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sun, 27 Nov 2011 16:50:01 GMT
Received: from martin by gonzales.homelinux.org with local (Exim 4.75)
	(envelope-from <mbays@sdf.org>)
	id 1RUhvV-0002C4-Ct
	for lojban@googlegroups.com; Sun, 27 Nov 2011 11:50:01 -0500
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 11:50:01 -0500
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] semantic parser - tersmu-0.1rc1
Message-ID: <20111127165001.GD3125@gonzales>
References: <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>
 <1322407503.64700.YahooMailRC@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="sgneBHv3152wZ8jf"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1322407503.64700.YahooMailRC@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
X-PGP-Key: http://mbays.freeshell.org/pubkey.asc
X-PGP-KeyId: B5FB2CD6
X-cunselcu'a-valsi: cuntu
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: /


--sgneBHv3152wZ8jf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Sunday, 2011-11-27 at 07:25 -0800 - John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com=
>:

> > ----- 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
> >=20
> > * Saturday, 2011-11-26 at 22:58 -0600 - John E. Clifford <kali9putra@ya=
hoo.com>:
> >=20
> > > 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=20
> > ><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 inv=
ariant
> > > >>> 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 pra=
mi 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 senten=
ces
> > > >> 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.
> > >=20
> > > I would assume that (by a different process) the unfilled place their
> > > will be taken to be {da}.
> >=20
> > But if it is, {le mamta} isn't constant with respect to {da}, as xorlo
> > (and, I thought, you) claim it must be.
> >=20
> > 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?
>=20
> I'm not sure whar you mean by "constant with respect to {da}".  The given=
=20
> occurrence of {le mamta} is within the scope of a universal quantifier on=
 {da},=20
> so, on one reasonable interpretation, its reference varies with the varia=
tion on=20
> the instantiations of {da}, i.e. it is a function.

Xorxes claims that it can't be a (non-constant) function, and that it
only can be when {da} is mentioned *explicitly* in the description.

The gadri proposal also states this (although it doesn't mention the
possibility of {da} occurring explicitly, so isn't wholly consistent).

> > > >>> 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 th=
em 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 quantificat=
ion?
> > >=20
> > > 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.
> >=20
> > 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).
>=20
> I always have trouble with just what "specific" means, so my example may =
be=20
> ill-chosen.  Hoe about the direct Lojban version of "The lions are restle=
ss=20
> tonight"?

The way I'm understanding 'specific' (at least as regards the meaning of
{le} and {voi}) has the english 'the' always introducing something
specific. I may be wrong...

Martin

--sgneBHv3152wZ8jf
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

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

iEYEARECAAYFAk7SajkACgkQULC7OLX7LNbatQCgjLPKjTpXMsejKY5YLhbhdqmg
SPYAoIVd4Kj86XTf4rwOAcZWHcaG0m4V
=Jkl6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--sgneBHv3152wZ8jf--