Received: from mail-pz0-f61.google.com ([209.85.210.61]:56733)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCOTEtqyUDhDmwun2BBoE14UUGg@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RWtjU-0000cR-Pp; Sat, 03 Dec 2011 09:50:47 -0800
Received: by dajx4 with SMTP id x4sf2663415daj.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 03 Dec 2011 09:50:34 -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=rQnWmbK0U/WpTUMcaJcqiLmP/HUDoYnDcLaYQTUt7Ac=;
        b=R4zo6S0tvuSoOsvRPJn1rBeJ9l7mf/jgrTaVVr16eT6k1xPBj6qKXmzpJxD8SdlRDZ
         +AC7uSM8PMi8N+Xo3vrBPBLEz0mEs8OtE5lsz/09ouj+2IZnMvCFYVX9P93Onv31OIZ5
         9S2I12AzepnjYwLtIP/GllKutQKm9vC1NIeK8=
Received: by 10.68.50.41 with SMTP id z9mr1804210pbn.12.1322934630137;
        Sat, 03 Dec 2011 09:50:30 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.68.42.101 with SMTP id n5ls18590653pbl.6.gmail; Sat, 03 Dec
 2011 09:50:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.15.41 with SMTP id u9mr15222548pbc.3.1322934629613;
        Sat, 03 Dec 2011 09:50:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.15.41 with SMTP id u9mr15222544pbc.3.1322934629605;
        Sat, 03 Dec 2011 09:50:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org. [192.94.73.19])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j5si6258283pbi.0.2011.12.03.09.50.29
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sat, 03 Dec 2011 09:50:29 -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 pB3HoSue008190
	for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sat, 3 Dec 2011 17:50:29 GMT
Received: from martin by gonzales.homelinux.org with local (Exim 4.75)
	(envelope-from <mbays@sdf.org>)
	id 1RWtjI-0006UO-IS
	for lojban@googlegroups.com; Sat, 03 Dec 2011 12:50:28 -0500
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 12:50:28 -0500
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] semantic parser - tersmu-0.1rc1
Message-ID: <20111203175028.GC12482@gonzales>
References: <CAO7tK2d9HQKweQJ_RE67GS-+hr=tEL_bzsZgEUfdCavxyOpLXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20111126182915.GC15113@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2fSavtz6QA1dJB0Nh7ZWC9_ucLMWdkC4Kzk2aQK9xpVrQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20111126214806.GB19833@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2cu1S5eGm9F21kDd6rN548CXdPqeTwEU5X4tD=OjctEfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20111129030444.GA26300@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2f3vj9sesm1XEOm4KArdxuKgAT84Whpn-D4HiaTFQXPWQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20111129225808.GA19818@gonzales>
 <20111201021703.GL2886@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2fH0ACodKJe7Hhwi8t_ivjiANg7d5cqEukudq6fRTZJXQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="KN5l+BnMqAQyZLvT"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2fH0ACodKJe7Hhwi8t_ivjiANg7d5cqEukudq6fRTZJXQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key: http://mbays.freeshell.org/pubkey.asc
X-PGP-KeyId: B5FB2CD6
X-cunselcu'a-valsi: samcu
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: /


--KN5l+BnMqAQyZLvT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Thursday, 2011-12-01 at 18:53 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.=
com>:

> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> >
> > Actually, there's an issue here, and I'm not sure how to resolve it.
>=20
> This is why I avoid relying on implicit quantifiers.

Ha, I see! I was wondering why you tend to put in the implicit {su'o}...

I fear this two-syllable saving is too valuable to just do away with,
though.

> > I think we agreed that
> > (i) if {lo broda be da} occurs not in the scope of a quantification of
> > =A0 =A0{da}, the resulting existential quantifier has scope only within=
 the
> > =A0 =A0lo-phrase - i.e., referents are claimed to satisfy
> > =A0 =A0EX x. broda(_,x) .
>=20
> That's how I would deal with "lo broda be su'o da".
>=20
> > Meanwhile,
> > (ii) if {da} is already quantified, then {lo broda be da} is interpreted
> > =A0 =A0as a skolem function.
>=20
> If da is bound by a quantifier and "lo broda be da" occurs within the
> scope of the quantifier, yes.

Thinking about it, I'm no longer so convinced that this is important.

I can't think of nor find any examples of uses of {lo broda be da} where
the itended meaning wouldn't be given more clearly by using {ro} or
{piro}/{ro'oi}, or occasionally some other quantifier.

It would certainly be conceptually neater to do away with this "Skolem
function" possibility for description sumti - declare them to be
*literally* constants, with any {da} in the description assumed not to
be bound outside, and any anaphora to exterior variables (or connected
terms) considered erroneous.

See any compelling arguments against that?

> > But then how to handle
> > {ge broda da gi brode vau lo brodi be da} ?
>=20
> The two options seem to be:
>=20
> (1) ge broda su'o da gi brode vau lo brodi be su'o de
>=20
> (2) su'o da zo'u ge broda da gi brode vau lo brodi be da
>=20
> I would personally choose (1), but I'm sure someone will want to argue fo=
r (2).
>=20
> > The same problem occurs with {da .e ko'a lo broda be da}, if my
> > understanding of the interaction between sumti connectives and
> > quantifiers is correct.
>=20
> Right, again it's one of:
>=20
> (1) su'o da .e ko'a lo broda be su'o de (cu brode)
>=20
> (2) su'o da zo'u da .e ko'a lo broda be da (cu brode)
>=20
> But I don't think you need to bring "lo" into this. We already have
> the same issue with "ge da gi ko'a da broda", which could be either
> of:
>=20
> (1) ge su'o da su'o de zo'u da de broda gi su'o de zo'u ko'a de broda
>=20
> (2) su'o da zo'u ge da da broda gi ko'a da broda

Hmm. I have it as

(3) ge su'o da zo'u da da broda gi su'o da zo'u ko'a da broda

, i.e. handling the two arms of the connective separately. This
algorithm seems most natural to me. Do you dislike this possibility for
some reason other than the {lo broda be da} issue?

(1) seems reasonable. It looks like it could be implemented (in all
cases) by having the binding of a {da} in a connectand to the bound
variable it creates survive only within the connectand. I think I might
like it.

> Is "da" just equivalent to "su'o da" in the same position where
> it first occurs (in which case the scope of "su'o" is determined by
> this position only) or is "da" bound by a quantifier with scope wide
> enough to encompass all following occurrences of "da" (in which case
> it may not be equivalent to "su'o da" in the same position)?

Interesting idea. This is how you derive (2)?

But having such a preprocessing step before scope can be decided
- meaning that in speech, the scope of a heard {da} can't be determined
until the statement is finished - strikes me as something to be avoided
if possible.

Martin

--KN5l+BnMqAQyZLvT
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

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

iEYEARECAAYFAk7aYWQACgkQULC7OLX7LNa58gCfbmuZImWZ4CPoJE2D2gifzmG8
pQIAoLNVyMa5KMPer9tGFYQilzYi4ySs
=uUZY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--KN5l+BnMqAQyZLvT--