Received: from mail-bw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.214.61]:37452)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRCi3-n2BBoEqFZiOQ@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RWugI-0000zk-ES; Sat, 03 Dec 2011 10:51:27 -0800
Received: by bkcje16 with SMTP id je16sf643975bkc.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 03 Dec 2011 10:51:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
         :message-id:subject:from: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=ZC2lpTfuA2K4FX/m8ETPSF5FZthQXvwg3j0V1Vp7iho=;
        b=bM3UubTCg++MwvO8itGo96bGVPJBS2azrt/NtUQaD3whPJazJvWU7QXeio3Zs21Pga
         QzvMRPfMx+MAQvD8FfvPUkuIDBvOjGdEe+mpIaL9PfpwdvNWVgh+0KUXBHS36c/u6PbQ
         3GP0i60c20u9Nnr92IBRCQQ42gnTEWXDvJTcU=
Received: by 10.204.155.142 with SMTP id s14mr491887bkw.35.1322938274992;
        Sat, 03 Dec 2011 10:51:14 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.204.200.144 with SMTP id ew16ls2673515bkb.2.gmail; Sat, 03 Dec
 2011 10:51:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.205.133.197 with SMTP id hz5mr99453bkc.6.1322938274007;
        Sat, 03 Dec 2011 10:51:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.205.133.197 with SMTP id hz5mr99452bkc.6.1322938273991;
        Sat, 03 Dec 2011 10:51:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f48.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f48.google.com [209.85.215.48])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c11si3550709bke.3.2011.12.03.10.51.13
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sat, 03 Dec 2011 10:51:13 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.48 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.48;
Received: by lagv3 with SMTP id v3so2433907lag.35
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sat, 03 Dec 2011 10:51:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.109.199 with SMTP id hu7mr2101706lab.16.1322938273601;
 Sat, 03 Dec 2011 10:51:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.152.19.198 with HTTP; Sat, 3 Dec 2011 10:51:13 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <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>
	<20111203175028.GC12482@gonzales>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 15:51:13 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2eDAX-HZMubt9k5coxY=AjnxbQj67t8-2TF-sTcsnrtug@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] semantic parser - tersmu-0.1rc1
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.48 as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.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: /

On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> * Thursday, 2011-12-01 at 18:53 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmai=
l.com>:
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Meanwhile,
>> > (ii) if {da} is already quantified, then {lo broda be da} is interpret=
ed
>> > =A0 =A0as a skolem function.
>>
>> 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.

What about things like: "ro da poi verba cu prami lo mamta be da"?

> 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?

I don't really see a problem with functions. (I don't think they are
Skolem functions though, just the usual functions of first order
logic.)

>> 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:
>>
>> (1) ge su'o da su'o de zo'u da de broda gi su'o de zo'u ko'a de broda
>>
>> (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?

I find it weird that for one conjunct the second "da" is the same
variable as the first "da", and for the other conjunct it's a
different variable. As I said, I don't think bridi connected with eks
share words.

> (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.

That's what makes sense to me, but of course it goes against CLL.

>> 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)?

That's the only way I can make sense of CLL's rule for implicit
quantifiers jumping out of their "natural" scope.

> 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.

How else can you process CLL's implicit quantifiers having scope over
several bridi?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--=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.